检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:郑科技 Keji Zheng(Civil,Commercial and Economic Law School,Gansu University of Political Science and Law,Lanzhou Gansu)
出 处:《法学(汉斯)》2024年第8期4845-4849,共5页Open Journal of Legal Science
基 金:甘肃政法大学研究生科研创新项目,项目编号:2024011。
摘 要:由于我国法律未明文规定消费民事公益诉讼中原告可否请求惩罚性赔偿,原告的惩罚性赔偿请求权于法无据,导致司法实践中同案不同判的情况时有发生。若要充分发挥制度价值,有必要深入剖析消费民事公益诉讼引入惩罚性赔偿请求权的合理性。在探讨合理性之后,在立法上予以明确,从而能够威慑不法经营者,切实维护消费公共利益。Because the law of our country does not explicitly stipulate whether the plaintiff can request puni-tive damages in consumer civil public interest litigation,the plaintiff's right to claim punitive damages is unfounded in law,resulting in different judgments of the same case in judicial practice.In order to give full play to the value of the system,it is necessary to deeply analyze the rationality of introducing the right to claim punitive damages in consumer civil public interest litigation.Af-ter exploring the rationality,it should be clarified in legislation,so as to deter illegal operators and effectively safeguard the public interests of consumption.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:18.191.31.104