论法规目的的司法审查——从《道路交通安全法》第22条的适用展开

On Judicial Review of Provision's Purpose: Expansion From Application of Article 22 of Road Traffic Safety Law

依循我国法院常用的因果关系理论,程健案判决书采用了直接因果关系标准。实际上,因果关系理论是丰富的。本质上,归责是一个法律问题,属于法规判断的范畴。因此,探寻法规范的目的是归责案件司法审查中必经的步骤。借鉴行政法学中的保护规范理论来确定《道路交通安全法》第22条第1款是否具有个人利益保护目的较为困难。如果从新近的主观公权利标准、我国司法实际及国外的标准来看,认定其可以保护个人利益并非不可能。然而,当我们参酌优先适用原则和虑及该条款缺失法律后果规定时,就可知该条款适用于本案是不可取的。

According to the frequently used causality theory in Chinese courts, the judgment of Chengjian＇s case took use of the direct causality standard. But in fact, the causality theory should be richer. In essence, imputation is a legal issue, which belongs to the category of provision judgment. Therefore, the study of the provision＇s purpose is a necessary step for the judicial review of imputation cases. It is hard to defy whether there is the purpose of individual interest protection in the article 22（1） of the Road Traffic Safety Law by using only the protecting regulation theory in the administrative law. Whilst, thinking about the latest subjective？public rights standard, the Chinese judicial practice and the related foreign standards, the definition is possible. Nevertheless, when factors of the prior application theory and the lack of related legal consequence of the provision are taken into consideration, it can be found that this provision fits not the case.