【摘要】：在我國，目前不管是道路交通執(zhí)法機(jī)關(guān),還是人民法院在審理搶黃燈案件時均存在困惑。本案中，，雙方就搶黃燈行是否違法以及行政法律可否類推適用產(chǎn)生爭議。爭議產(chǎn)生的根源在于目前道路交通法律、法規(guī)相關(guān)條文語義含糊不清和對法律類推適用原理的理解不透。解決這個爭議最好的方法就是對法律、法規(guī)和類推原則予以深入解析。 首先，根據(jù)對現(xiàn)行有效的《中華人民共和國道路交通安全法》以及《中華人民共和國道路交通安全法實施條例》條文的文意解釋、目的解釋、歷史解釋，我們可知上述法律、法規(guī)早就將搶黃燈行為予以了禁止，搶黃燈行為認(rèn)定違法有法律依據(jù)。 其次，因為禁止類推原則僅僅只是刑事法律原則而非行政法律原則，禁止類推意在保護(hù)法益免遭非法侵害而對法益能予以提前保護(hù)。行政法律侵害的公民法益且容易修復(fù)、救濟(jì)，這一點與刑法有天壤之別，也正是這一區(qū)別才使得行政法益未必要提前保護(hù)，再加上行政執(zhí)法的面廣、點多，法律本身的滯后性和抽象規(guī)則的特征，需要行政法法規(guī)類推適用，所以行政法律在本案類推適用有其正當(dāng)性。 最后，公安部在《中華人民共和國道路交通安全法》以及《中華人民共和國道路交通安全法實施條例》規(guī)定范圍內(nèi)修訂《機(jī)動車駕駛證申領(lǐng)和適用規(guī)定》應(yīng)視為下位法對上位法的補(bǔ)充與解釋，新法規(guī)的合理性與合法性也不存在疑問。
[Abstract]:In our country, both the road traffic law enforcement organ and the people's court are confused when they try the case of robbing yellow lamp. In this case, the two sides of the yellow lights whether illegal and administrative law can be comparable to the application of controversy. The origin of the dispute lies in the present road traffic law, the semantic ambiguity of the relevant provisions of the regulations and the unclear understanding of the principle of the application of the law analogy. The best way to resolve this dispute is to go deep into the laws, regulations, and analogies. First of all, according to the textual interpretation of the provisions of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the people's Republic of China and the implementing regulations of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the people's Republic of China, the purpose and historical interpretation of the provisions of the Law of the people's Republic of China are known to us. The law has long banned the act of robbing yellow lamps, and the act of robbing yellow lamps has a legal basis for determining that it is illegal. Secondly, because the principle of prohibition of analogy is only the principle of criminal law rather than the principle of administrative law, the prohibition of analogy is to protect the interests of law from illegal infringement and protect the interests of law in advance. The legal interests of citizens who are infringed by administrative laws are easy to repair and remedy. This is quite different from the criminal law, and it is this distinction that makes administrative legal interests not necessarily protected in advance. In addition, the scope of administrative law enforcement is wide, and there are many points. The lag of law itself and the characteristics of abstract rules need to be applied by analogy of administrative laws and regulations, so administrative law has its legitimacy in the application of analogy of administrative law in this case. Last, The revision by the Ministry of Public Security within the scope of the provisions of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the people's Republic of China and the implementing regulations of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the people's Republic of China on the Application and Application of Motor vehicle driving licenses shall be regarded as the subordinate Law Supplement and interpretation of the law of supremacy, There is no doubt about the reasonableness and legality of the new regulations.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D920.5;D922.14

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 陳志軍;;刑法司法解釋應(yīng)堅持反對類推解釋原則[J];中國人民公安大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2006年02期

本文編號：2453623