การศึกษาเปรียบเทียบการพิจารณาปัญหาข้อเท็จจริงและปัญหาข้อกฎหมายในกฎหมายไทยและกฎหมายฝรั่งเศส

Supakanya Khangrang

Authors

Supakanya Khangrang International College, Khon Kaen University

Keywords:

factual problem, legal problem, judicial discretion

Abstract

This article has the objective of making a comparative study of the legal problems and factual problems in Thai law and French law. Problems of fact and problems of law are of paramount importance in the trial process. First, they determine the burden of proof. If it is a factual issue, the litigant will have a duty to bring evidence to court. But if it is a legal issue, the court has the power to raise the issue in court even if the parties have not requested it. Because the questions of law fall within the duty of judges. Nevertheless, in some cases, even if the issue concerns factual problems, the law provides that the judge can raise the issue of dispute although the parties have not requested, especially in French law. What is important to highlight is the dividing line between the factual problems and the legal problems as well as the balance between the power not to rule beyond what is requested and the power to take initiative or to raise ex officio a plea when necessary.

This study helps to reveal the determination of criteria for consideration of the problem of facts and the problem of law, in both the Thai and French legal systems. The consideration of factual problems and legal problems is very important because it determines whether an appeal can be made to the High Court or not. In French law, only legal questions can be appealed to the Supreme Court. As for current Thai law, there is more strictness in screening cases before the Supreme Court, emphasizing only legal issues that can be appealed. Distinguishing between factual and legal issues can be done without difficulty in ordinary cases. But in some cases, distinction seems to be complicated, especially in cases where the issue of dispute can be legal and factual problem at the same time. In this matter, French law has interesting concepts to explore and that could be useful for Thai lawyers to learn about those legal perspectives.

References

ภาษาไทย

เจ้าพระยาศรีธรรมาธิเบศ, คำอธิบายกฎหมายลักษณพิจารณาคำพยานหลักฐาน (พิศาลบรรณนิติ์ 2458).

ประมวลกฎหมายวิธีพิจารณาความแพ่งและพาณิชย์ (2566)

ธานิศ เกศวพิทักษ์, คำอธิบายประมวลกฎหมายวิธีพิจารณาความอาญา (สำนักพิมพ์ กรุงสยาม 2555).

ภาษาต่างประเทศ

Anne Danis-Fatôme, ‘La mesure des dommages et intérêts : question de fait ou question de droit ?

Pour un renforcement du contrôle de la motivation des juges du fond’ (2019) 115 Revue des contrats 160.

Gaëtan Guerlin, ‘La mesure des dommages et intérêts par la Cour de cassation’ (2019) 115 Revue des contrats 182.

Henri Motulsky, Droit processuel (Montchrestien 1973).

Henri Motulsky, ‘La cause de la demande dans la délimitation de l'office du juge’ in Chronique XXXIV (Dalloz 1964).

Jacques Dupichot, ‘L’adage da mihi factum, dabo tibi jus : Propos sur les obligations et quelques autres thèmes fondamentaux du droit’ in Mélanges offertes à Jean-Luc Aubert (Dalloz 2005).

Jacques Normand, ‘Le juge et le fondement du litige’ in Mélanges offertes à Pierre Hebraud (Université des sciences sociales de Toulouse 1981).

Loïc Cadiet and Emmanuel Jeuland, Droit judiciaire privé (11th edn, LexisNexis, 2020).

Loïs Raschel, Droit processuel de la responsabilité civile (IRJS, 2010).

Miguet Jacques, ‘Réflexions sur le pouvoir des parties de lier le juge par les qualifications et points de droit’ in Mélanges offertes à Pierre Hebraud (Univ. Sc. soc. Toulouse 1981).

Serge Guinchard, Droit et pratique de la procédure civile (9th edn, Dalloz Action 2016).

Gaëtin Guerlin, ‘La mesure des dommages et intérêts par la Cour de cassation’ in L’évaluation des dommages et intérêts : question de fait ou question de droit ?’ (2019) Revue de Droit Civil 1156, 182.

Raymond Martin, ‘Le relevé d’office d’un moyen de droit (suite et fin)’ (Dalloz 2006).