刑事诉讼中单位诉讼代表人拒不出庭的程序应对  

Response to the Failure of Unit Litigation Representatives to Appear in Criminal Proceedings

作　　者：杨杰辉[1] Yang Jiehui

机构地区：[1]浙江工业大学法学院

出　　处：《荆楚法学》2024年第3期76-88,共13页Jingchu Law Review

基　　金：国家社科基金一般项目“刑事一体化视域下一事不再理的效力范围研究”(项目编号:20BFX092)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：单位犯罪案件中通常由诉讼代表人代替单位出庭参与诉讼,但是实践中有时会出现诉讼代表人拒不出庭的情况,对此法律法规将拘传作为强制诉讼代表人出庭的手段。但是,对拒不出庭的诉讼代表人采取拘传手段,不具有正当性、合法性,也无必要。诉讼代表人具有与其他诉讼代表人相同的法律地位,因此不能对其采取作为强制措施的拘传手段。由于诉讼代表人具有可替代性,因此也不必要对其采取强制到案的拘传措施。在诉讼代表人必须出庭维护单位诉讼权益的情况下,需要寻找新的替代措施督促诉讼代表人参与诉讼,以保障单位犯罪案件诉讼程序顺利进行。In criminal cases involving legal entities,it is common for a legal representative to appear on behalf of the entity in litigation.However,in practice,situations may arise where the legal representative refuses to attend court proceedings.Summons is recognized by laws and regulations as a means to compel the mandatory appearance and participation in litigation activi-ties,typically applicable to indispensable parties and witnesses who have a necessary obligation to appear.The legitimacy and legality of applying summons measures to legal representatives in corporate litigation raise questions in theory.Legal representatives have the same legal status as other representatives and should not be subject to coercive measures such as summons.Given the substitutability of legal representatives,it is unnecessary to resort to coercive summons measures.In cases where the presence of a legal representative is essential to safeguard the liti-gation rights of the entity,alternative measures should be explored to ensure the participation of the legal representative and the smooth progress of the criminal proceedings involving legal enti-ties.

关 键 词：诉讼代表人 拘传 单位犯罪 强制措施 

分 类 号：D925.2[政治法律—诉讼法学]