论文部分内容阅读
如何在纷争解决机制之设计上,提升面对大鲸鱼之小虾米“接近正义”的可能性,长久以来一直为民事程序法学所面临的重大挑战。立法者除了在诉讼制度中试图设置有助于弱势者能尽量克服起诉之经济门槛以迈入法院大门主张权利之机制外,亦不断尝试开展有利于消费者之替代性纷争解决制度。本文以台湾地区“金融消费者保护法”对英国“Private Ombudsman”制度之借镜以及该法研议过程之转折为例,分析此项开拓替代性纷争解决途径之尝试所挑起的课题与所带来的启示。英国在金融消费争议领域中发展出之“PrivateOmbudsman”机制,与传统的调解与仲裁等替代性纷争解决机制均有所不同,其“片面强制管辖”与“片面拘束力”之设计,为消费者创造了一个友善的寻求救济管道。本文认为,在消费者对金融机构就后者提供之商品服务所引起争议之脉络中,采取此等规范设计,并不至于产生“违宪侵害金融机构诉讼权与程序选择权”之问题。不过,得以“合宪地”采取此种程序机制设计,并不当然代表立法者即应追随英国脚步实行“Private Ombudsman”机制。本文在检讨此课题之过程中,对于民事程序法学值得于未来进一步拓展的研究方向,提出若干建议。
How to improve the design of the dispute resolution mechanism for the possibility of facing the whale’s shrimp “near justice” has long been a major challenge to civil procedural jurisprudence. In addition to trying to set up a system that will help the disadvantaged to try their best to overcome the economic threshold of prosecution and gain the right to enter the courtroom, the legislators also try to carry out the system of alternative dispute resolution in favor of consumers. This article takes the example of the “Private Ombudsman” system of the “Consumer Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China” in Taiwan and the turning point of the law research process, and analyzes the issues raised by this attempt to open up alternative dispute resolution approaches With the enlightenment brought. The “Private Organizations” mechanism developed by the United Kingdom in the area of financial consumer disputes is different from the traditional dispute settlement mechanisms such as mediation and arbitration. Its “unilateral coercive power” and “one-sided binding power” The design creates a friendly pipeline for consumers seeking relief. This paper argues that in the context of the controversy that consumers face over the financial services provided by financial institutions to the latter, the adoption of such standardized designs does not result in the issue of “unconstitutional violation of the litigation rights and procedural options of financial institutions”. However, it is not possible to represent such legislators on a “constitutional basis” and adopt the “Private Ombudsman” mechanism. In the process of reviewing this subject, this article puts forward some suggestions on the research direction that the jurisprudence of civil procedure deserves to be further expanded in the future.