类案判断“双重相似标准”的反思与重构

Rethinking and Reconstructing the“Double Similarity Standard”for Judgment of Similar Cases

最高人民法院为类案判断确立了事实相似和法律相似的“双重相似标准”,这一标准看似明确,但实际内容却很模糊。实践中法官依据“双重相似标准”难以获得稳定的判断结果,而现有研究提出的改进建议实质上也是在解放自由裁量权,难以实现“类案同判”的目的。从法理上看,事实相似性判断依靠法官的经验和认知,没有确定的范围,缺乏客观的标准,事实判断前置还会对后续的法律判断产生不良影响。事实相似标准没有独立存在的必要性,可以被法律规范结构中类型化事实所取代。法律相似应成为类案判断的核心标准。该标准以理性共识作为基础,以形式法律依据的相似和实质价值判断的相似为内容,判断方法涉及类型化、法律解释、价值权衡等。有必要围绕法律相似的形式和实质层面,重构类案判断的“双重相似标准”。

The Supreme People’s Court has established a“double similarity standard”of similarity in fact and similarity in law for the determination of similar cases.This standard seems to be clear,but the actual content is very vague.In practice,it is difficult for judges to obtain stable judgment results based on the“double similarity standard”.The improvement suggestions put forward by the existing research are in essence a liberation of discretion,which is difficult to realize the purpose of“stare decisis”.From the viewpoint of jurisprudence,the factual similarity judgment relies on the experience and cognition of the judge,without both definite scope and objective criteria.Prioritisation of factual judgements can also have an adverse effect on subsequent legal judgements.The criterion of factual similarity has no need to exist independently and can be replaced by the similarity of typified facts in the structure of legal norms.Legal similarity should be the core criterion for the judgement of similar cases.This standard is based on rational consensus,with the similarity of formal legal basis and the similarity of substantive value judgement as the content,which judgement method involves typology,legal interpretation,value trade-off and so on.The“double similarity standard”for judging similar cases should be reconstructed around the formal and substantive dimensions of legal similarity.