对抗抑或证据:专家辅助人功能的重新审视——兼论最高法院审理“奇虎360诉腾讯”案  

Legislative vague and judicial swing:the specialized knowledge of the litigation status of confusion——study of qihoo 360 technology v.tencent,judged by the supreme people's court of China

作　　者：郭华[1] 

机构地区：[1]中央财经大学法学院,北京100081

出　　处：《证据科学》2016年第2期133-142,共10页Evidence Science

摘　　要：我国《民事诉讼法》对"有专门知识的人"的规定相当简疏,致使理论与实践在"专家辅助人"抑或"专家证人"称谓上左右摇摆。最高法院在审理"奇虎360诉腾讯"不正当竞争案因"滥用市场支配地位"的专业问题在法庭上表述为"专家证人",而在判决书中却又表述为"专家辅助人",致使其功能是协助当事人质疑鉴定意见还是协作当事人提供证据的"专家证人"模糊不清。由于最高法院的解释在用语上的混用,加剧了司法实践在此问题上的任意性以及最高法院作为最高司法机关在此的权威性危机。最高法院有必要对"有专门知识的人"应统一为专家辅助人并强调其程序对抗功能,以维护法律适用的严肃性。The Civil Procedure Law, the Criminal Procedure Law, or the derivative regulations and the judicial interpretation of these two statutes do not express an expert as an expert witness. Though the appellation of expert witness appeared in court of Qihoo 360 Technology v. Tencent unfair competition, which is judged by The Supreme People＇s Court, when explaining the professional knowledge of the abuse of market dominant position, these experts were expressed as expert assessors in the judgment. It seems that there is nothing but two different items when we express an expert as expert assessor or expert witness in our judicatory practice. However, there are essential differences about the demand of judicial proceedings, litigation position and the relationship of rights and obligations between the two different items. Mixing up the different items and different procedures leads the litigation position into confusion, which makes our judicatory practice end in arbitrariness. As a result, it is time for the Supreme People＇s Court to identify an expert in a case as an expert assessor officially to safeguard the seriousness and authority of the application of law.

关 键 词：有专门知识的人 专家证人 专家辅助人 

分 类 号：D915.13[政治法律—诉讼法学]