法院民事证据保全制度反思

发布时间：2018-03-31 04:08

本文选题：证据保全　切入点：法院证据保全　出处：《内蒙古大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：在我国当前的司法实务操作中,法院证据保全与公证证据保全为民事主体提供了保全、收集证据的多元选择途径。随着员额制和立案登记制的逐步推行,法官的员额被严格控制,"案多人少"、"审判人手不足"的现实问题将变得愈发严重,面对巨大的案件压力,使法官已无暇顾及保全证据职能的履行。公证机构作为另一民事证据保全主体凭借其独特的优势受到民事主体的青睐,公证证据保全成为民事主体寻求有效证据来支持其事实主张以便维护自身合法权利的重要途径。事实上,公证机构进行证据保全不仅能帮助缺乏相关法律知识的民事主体提取、固定和保存证据,而且可以减轻法院的业务压力,节约司法资源促使法院更好的履行居中裁判职能。应该指出的是提倡公证证据保全并不意味着提倡取消法院证据保全,而是更加强调二者在证据保全领域的分工与协作。此外,我国法院民事证据保全制度程序简陋,现行《民事诉讼法》尚未对证据保全程序方面的问题作出详细统一的规定,仅仅笼统规定参照适用保全的有关规定,存在实践困难,阻碍保全证据基本功能的发挥。为了充分实现法院证据保全制度的机能,还应立足于我国现有的证据保全双轨制而作相应的制度安排。
[Abstract]:In the current judicial practice of our country, court evidence preservation and notarization evidence preservation provide preservation for civil subjects and multiple ways to collect evidence.With the gradual implementation of the post system and the registration system, the posts of judges are strictly controlled, and the actual problem of "shortage of judicial staff" will become more and more serious.The judge had no time to attend to the performance of the function of preservation of evidence.As another civil evidence preservation subject, the notary institution is favored by the civil subject by virtue of its unique advantages. The notarial evidence preservation has become an important way for the civil subject to seek effective evidence to support its factual claims in order to safeguard its own legal rights.In fact, notarial institutions can not only help civil subjects who lack the relevant legal knowledge to extract, fix and preserve evidence, but also alleviate the business pressure of the courts.Saving the judicial resources to promote the court to better perform the function of center adjudication.It should be pointed out that advocating the preservation of notarized evidence does not mean abolishing the preservation of court evidence, but emphasizing the division of labor and cooperation between them in the field of preservation of evidence.In addition, the procedures of the civil evidence preservation system in the courts of our country are simple and crude. The current Civil procedure Law has not yet made a detailed and unified provision on the procedural aspects of the preservation of evidence. It is only a general provision referring to the relevant provisions on the application of preservation.There are difficulties in practice, which hinder the exertion of the basic function of preserving evidence.In order to fully realize the function of the court evidence preservation system, we should also make corresponding institutional arrangements based on the existing double track system of evidence preservation in our country.
【学位授予单位】：内蒙古大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.1;D926.2

【相似文献】