《食品安全法》中的惩罚性赔偿研究  

Research on Punitive Compensation in the Food Safety Law

作　　者：仇杰 QIU Jie(Law School,Nanjing University,Nanjing Jiangsu 210003,China)

机构地区：[1]南京大学法学院,江苏南京210003

出　　处：《盐城工学院学报（社会科学版）》2024年第1期26-31,共6页Journal of Yancheng Institute of Technology（Social Science Edition）

摘　　要：为规范市场秩序,惩罚不法商家,有关食品安全领域惩罚性赔偿的讨论日益火热。作为激励消费者维权、惩罚违反《食品安全法》的行为、威慑潜在行为者的重要制度,我国关于惩罚性赔偿的法律规定不断修改、完善。然而,即使法律规定不断完善,实践中仍存在诸多争议问题尚待解决,包括知假买假者的诉讼资格、实际损失的前提性地位、经营者主观要件的证明责任及“标签瑕疵”的认定标准缺失四类问题。针对这四类争议问题,应当在司法解释中给出明确结论以供实践参考。对此,应当肯定知假买假者请求惩罚性赔偿的资格,不以实际损失为惩罚性赔偿成立的前提要件,推定经营者明知并分类型确立“标签瑕疵”的认定标准。这样,才能充分保障惩罚性赔偿功能的发挥,保障市场机制的正常运行。In order to regulate the market order and punish unscrupulous businesses,the discussion on punitive damages in the field of food safety has become increasingly hot.As an important system to motivate consumers to protect their rights,punish those who violate the Food Safety Law,and deter potential actors,my country′s laws and regulations on punitive damages are constantly being revised and improved.However,even with the continuous improvement of legal provisions,there are still many controversial issues to be resolved in practice,including four categories:the litigious qualifications of those who know fakes and buy fakes,the precondition for actual losses,the burden of proof of the operator′s subjective requirements,and the identification of label defects.For these four types of disputes,clear conclusions should be given in judicial interpretations for practical reference.In this regard,it should be affirmed that the person who knew the fake and bought the fake is eligible to request punitive damages,and the actual loss should not be regarded as the precondition for the establishment of punitive damages.Also,it is presumed that the operator knew,and established the identification standards of"label defect".Only in this way can the function of punitive damages be fully guaranteed and the normal operation of the market mechanism be ensured.

关 键 词：惩罚性赔偿 食品安全 知假买假者 实际损失 标签瑕疵 

分 类 号：D924.13[政治法律—刑法学]