我国离婚损害赔偿诉讼中的举证困难问题探究

发布时间：2018-09-10 10:00

【摘要】：离婚损害赔偿制度作为一种救济制度，由2001年修正后的《中华人民共和国婚姻法》加以确立,它填补了新中国有史以来婚姻损害赔偿制度的立法空白。近年来，我国离婚案件呈逐年上升趋势，而离婚损害赔偿制度的实际作用却非常有限，举证困难的问题在诉讼中日益突显，，使得该制度的实际执行效果与预期效果相差很大，已经远远违背了当初设立的初衷，成为完善该制度亟待解决的问题。本文以婚外情、家庭暴力等法定过错为主要研究对象,采用法解释学、法社会学以及比较研究等方法，结合基层案例和数据，对离婚损害赔偿诉讼举证困难的表现形式、形成原因进行探讨，从而提出解决建议，对完善离婚损害赔偿制度有重要的现实意义和一定的理论价值。根据我国《婚姻法》及相关解释规定，无过错方要想获得赔偿就必须举证证明过错行为，但由于婚外情、家庭暴力通常具有较高隐秘性，又受到传统思想和法律文化的影响，当事人往往很难依靠自己收集到证据。不少当事人转而依靠私人侦探，而私人侦探的主体以及取证方式的合法性同样令人堪忧，私录私拍的视听证据又常因为程序瑕疵被认定为非法证据。从司法案例和基层数据中可以看出证据保存差、证据来源少、证据效力弱、非法证据多成为了举证困难的主要表现形式。因此，本文重点从法理、制度、现实三方面提出解决建议。首先，从法理层面协调权利冲突。调和公民隐私权和夫妻知情权，凡涉及配偶及家庭利益的，应属于夫妻知情权的范畴，其他的属于个人隐私，使之形成和谐共生的均衡状态。其次，从制度层面调整证据规则。针对私录私拍证据认定的局限性，通过细化合法证据规定，明确证据收集禁止方法，区分对象、场所有条件确认，在紧急情况下允许限制他人权利的举证行为，适当扩大法官取舍证据的自由裁量权；针对私人侦探的合法性疑问，规范私人侦探行业，严格注册登记，提高准入门槛，出台相关法律法规，加强相关政府部门监管，提高私力救济水平；针对举证责任分配不公平，由无过错方对其主张承担初步的证明责任，法院结合举证能力和举证妨碍的考虑，有条件采用举证责任倒置；针对证明标准不合理，引入相对优势证明标准，但应当有所限制，如不适用独任制审判，判决理由明示，非程序或逻辑错误不得改判。最后，从现实层面拓宽取证途径。引入“调查令制度”，当有知情者不愿作证时，可向法院提出申请强制提供证据；对举证过程中可能产生的二次伤害，采取举证保障性措施；法院和相关基层单位应发挥作用，加强对当事人的举证指导，有必要时应进行职权调查。本文的创新之处在于选题具有开拓性，并且充分融入了司法实践经验和数据，在已有理论研究的基础上引入调查令制度、人身安全保障措施等司法试点项目。由于笔者的民法理论功底尚不够深厚，特别是受制于外语材料和阅读能力的有限，在比较研究上，受到一定的局限。
[Abstract]:As a relief system, the divorce damage compensation system was established by the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China amended in 2001. It fills in the legislative gap of the marriage damage compensation system in the history of New China. The difficulty of proof is becoming increasingly prominent in litigation, which makes the actual implementation effect of the system very different from the expected effect. It has gone against the original intention of the establishment of the system and become an urgent problem to be solved. And comparative study and other methods, combined with grass-roots cases and data, to divorce damages litigation difficult to prove the manifestations of the formation of reasons, and thus put forward solutions, to improve the divorce damages system has important practical significance and certain theoretical value.
According to China's Marriage Law and relevant interpretations, the innocent party must prove the fault if he wants to get compensation. However, due to extramarital affairs, domestic violence is usually highly secretive and influenced by traditional ideas and legal culture, it is often difficult for the party concerned to collect evidence by himself. The main body of the private detective and the legality of the way of obtaining evidence are also worrying. Privately recorded audio-visual evidence is often regarded as illegal evidence because of procedural flaws. Therefore, this paper puts forward some suggestions from three aspects: jurisprudence, system and reality. Firstly, the conflict of rights should be coordinated from the legal level. Secondly, we should adjust the evidence rules from the system level. In view of the limitations of the identification of private record evidence, we should clarify the prohibition method of evidence collection, distinguish the objects, confirm the premises conditionally, permit the restriction of other people's rights in case of emergency, and appropriately expand the discretion of the judge to accept or reject evidence. In view of the unfair distribution of burden of proof, the non-fault party shall bear the preliminary burden of proof for its claim, and the court shall combine the ability of proof with the hindrance of proof. Consideration, conditional use of inversion of the burden of proof; in view of the unreasonable standard of proof, the introduction of comparative advantage standard of proof, but should be limited, such as not applicable to a sole trial, the reason for the decision is clear, non-procedural or logical errors can not be changed. When they wish to testify, they may apply to the court for compulsory evidence; take safeguards against the possible secondary injury in the process of proof; the court and relevant grass-roots units should play a role in strengthening the guidance of the parties to the proof, and investigate their powers and powers when necessary.
The innovation of this paper is that the topic is pioneering, and fully incorporates the judicial practice experience and data. On the basis of the existing theoretical research, the author introduces the investigation order system, personal security measures and other judicial pilot projects. Limitations in comparative study are limited.
【学位授予单位】：华侨大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D923.9

【参考文献】