Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
A Review on the Incidental Civil Procedure
Incidental Civil Procedure;Inquisition;Victim;Accused;Fact-Finding
|Issue Date:||2017-11-07 14:43:31 (UTC+8)|
Since the procedural law reforms dramatically began with the end of the 20th century, many legal theories become much different from those adopted by their first drafts. It becomes necessary to reexamine the Incidental Civil Procedure so that any conflicts between the new and old systems could be found. After affirming crime victims’ protection is central to the right to fair trial, it seems important to limit the civil procedure theory requiring the plaintiffs to initiate a civil lawsuit while dealing with tort claims during criminal procedure. In some cases, it is mandatory for a public prosecutor or a court to order restitution ex parte so that the crime victims should be protected effectively. With recognition that the criminal court is obliged to concurrently resolve the incidental civil lawsuit based upon criminal investigation only, Article 504 of the ROC CPXC should be abolished. In order to facilitate the crime victims to recover all losses in a latter civil lawsuit, it is favorable to add the estoppels collateral clause in the ROC CPC.
|Relation:||政大法學評論, 143, 123-190|
|Appears in Collections:||[法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文|
Files in This Item:
All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.