退回补充调查的法理定位与优化路径  

The Legal Nature and Optimization Path of Returning Cases for Supplementary Investigation

作　　者：常保国[1] 胡雨晴 CHANG Baoguo;HU Yuqing(School of Discipline Inspection and Supervision,China University of Political Science and Law,Beijing 100088 China)

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学纪检监察学院,北京100088

出　　处：《浙江工商大学学报》2025年第2期56-67,共12页Journal of Zhejiang Gongshang University

基　　金：国家社会科学基金重大项目“中国特色国家监察学学科体系建设研究”(19ZDA134)。

摘　　要：退回补充调查作为国家监察体制改革创设的新制度,其法理定位不明导致在理论和实践中存在一些争议。在性质定位上,退回补充调查的决定主体是检察机关、实施主体是监察机关,退回补充调查期间调取证据在需遵守监察规则的同时又受到刑事诉讼规范的统摄,退回补充调查发挥着“监察-诉讼”程序衔接以及实现监察机关和检察机关之间“配合制约”目标的价值,因而兼具监察和诉讼的双重属性。在阶段定位上,退回补充调查的程序启动决定权和期间案件主导权等在检察机关,因而原则上应属于审查起诉阶段,只有监察机关重新对案件作出处理才退回到监察调查阶段。基于此,退回补充调查的优化应合理平衡其监察属性和诉讼属性,强化权力制约和程序控制,并完善当事人的诉讼权利。As a new system established under China's national supervision reform,the practice of returning cases for supplementary investigation has generated theoretical and practical controversies due to its ambiguous legal nature.In terms of institutional character,the decision-making authority lies with procuratorial organs while the implementing body is the supervision organ.Evidence collection during supplementary investigation must comply with supervision rules while being governed by criminal procedure standards.The mechanism serves as both a “supervision-procedure” linkage and a tool for achieving “coordination-and-check” between supervision and procuratorial organs-thus bearing dual attributes of supervision and litigation.Regarding procedural phase positioning,since procuratorial organs hold both the initiation decision power and case direction authority during supplementary investigation,the process should principally belong to the prosecution review phase.Only when supervision organs reprocess the case does it revert to the supervision investigation phase.Accordingly,optimization should balance the dual supervision-litigation attributes,strengthen power constraints and procedural controls and enhance litigants' procedural rights.

关 键 词：退回补充调查 监察调查 审查起诉 程序倒流 退回补充侦查 

分 类 号：D925.2[政治法律—诉讼法学]