民事执行听证程序研究

发布时间：2018-04-11 03:27

本文选题：民事执行听证 + 执行裁决权　；参考：《江西财经大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：“执行难”和“执行乱”一直是执行工作备受诟病的两个方面。生效法律文书没有得到执行,损害了司法判决乃至法院的权威性,派生了“执行难”一词。“执行乱”则是指执行中存在的违反法律规定的执行行为。不可否认,很多“执行难”现象的产生,与“执行乱”不无关系。对于“执行难”,毕竟牵扯到经济体制、政治体制等外部原因,以法院一己之力短期内无法破解,但对于“执行乱”,绝大多数由法院内部原因引起,短期内通过规范执行和公开执行等一些手段方法,还是有望改善继而根除的。正是出于这样的信心和决心,执行听证作为应对执行乱的一项执行公开的措施应运而生。执行听证程序“能尽量将每一件执行案件都置于双方当事人和社会的监督下,增强执行的透明度。有利于强化当事人、案外人的举证意识,并实现公正、规范执行”1。从2000年至今的十余年时间里,全国多个法院积极引入执行听证,取得了良好的实践效果。但由于缺乏统一的法律规定,各地法院所制定的执行听证程序规则过于随意,在适用过程中也暴露出对执行听证程序的价值功能定位不明、执行听证程序工具化等一些弊端和不足。诚然,由于民事执行听证程序附属于执行程序,无论在中立性、终局性、体现公平公正价值等方面而言与审判程序相差甚远,那么民事执行听证程序有没有可能更加接近公平公正,更加容易被当事人等群体所接受并熟练掌握,这有待于认真审视观察。但就执行听证程序的上位概念即执行救济而言,我们注意到,近年来随着依法治国方略的逐渐铺开,关于执行救济方法,立法界和司法界的认识也在提升,开始重视执行裁决权的规范运用,这就是民事执行听证执行实践蓬勃发展的事实基础。听证所具有类司法性、程序性、公开性、直接言辞性、抗辩性等法律特点,加之其具备便捷、灵活但又不失规范化操作的优势,非常适合在执行救济中予以引入。执行机构以国家强制力为后盾,职权主义色彩极为浓厚,但在执行救济程序中则应当尊重“当事人主义”,赋予当事人充分的程序权利,并最大限度保障执行当事人和利害关系人的程序救济需求。同时必须厘清与民事审判的审理界限,设计相配套的证据规则,在效率方面还要注意自身的定位,防止当事人滥用听证程序。在十八届四中全会上,《关于全面推进依法治国若干重大问题的决定》指出,要完善司法体制,推动实行审判权和执行权相分离的体制改革试点。日前,最高人民法院出台了《关于全面深化人民法院改革的意见》,其中就“深化执行体制改革”有了明确的表述。这使得本文的探讨研究在执行体制改革进程中具有一定的实际意义,前瞻性和操作性也较强,希冀能对规范执行工作也有所裨益。本文从一则执行听证案例入手,从中感知到我国民事执行听证程序在个案适用中存在着法律依据缺失、规则不一、法律效果不明等诸多问题,介绍了本文构思的初衷及其目的意义以及研究方法。第一部分从民事执行听证程序的内涵、法源和特点三方面出发,介绍了民事执行听证程序的基本理论。第二部分立足于我国民事执行听证程序的立法和实践的基本情况,分析十多年来的民事执行听证实践的蓬勃发展情况,说明该程序在执行中存在一定的价值效用,另一方面实践中也暴露出四大问题,究其问题的产生缘由,与执行权职权性与回应型司法之间存在一定差别、执行听证的裁决性与裁决结果的非终局性之间存在一定矛盾、执行听证程序的中立性与执行强制性之间存在的冲突以及执行听证程序的形式审查与实质裁断之间存在一定割裂等原因密切相连。第三部分则分析了瑞士、德国、日本和台湾这四个国家或地区民事执行救济制度的域外规定情况,从中获得一些有益的启示。第四部分是在全面依法治国、审判权与执行权之间分离的体制改革的大前提下,着墨于我国民事执行听证程序完善路径,分别从价值功能定位、基本原则、程序规则等方面阐述如何进一步完善我国民事执行听证程序。
[Abstract]:"Difficult to implement" and "implementation of chaos" has been the two aspects of implementation has been heavily criticized. The effective legal documents have not been implemented, damage the judicial authority and the court's judgment, derived from the "difficult to execute" one word. "Implementation of chaos" refers to the violation of the provisions of the law enforcement behavior are carried out. Admittedly, a lot of "difficult to execute" phenomenon, not unrelated to the "implementation of chaos". The "difficult to execute", after all, involved in the economic system, political system and other external reasons, the court has single handedly in the short term can not crack, but for the "implementation of chaos", the vast majority of internal reasons caused by the court. Implementation of standard and public execution methods by some means in the short term, is expected to improve and eradicate. It is for such confidence and determination, as a response to the implementation of hearing a disorderly execution of public measures "As far as possible. The enforcement hearing will oversee every case of execution are placed in the both parties and the society, enhance the implementation of transparency. To strengthen the party consciousness, the burden of the outsider, and achieve justice, regulate the implementation of more than ten years of time since 2000 1., the National Multiple court actively introduce the implementation of hearing and obtained good results. But because of the lack of a unified law enforcement hearing, the rules around the court is too casual, in the application process also exposed the unknown value function for the implementation of the hearing procedure, the hearing procedure execution tool etc. some shortcomings and deficiencies. Indeed, because of the civil execution hearing of to execute the program, in terms of neutrality, finality, reflect fair value terms and trial procedures so far, civil execution hearing procedures have Can more fair, more easily accepted by the parties and other groups and proficiency, which need to be carefully observed. But the implementation of the concept of the hearing procedure execution remedy, we note that in recent years, with the gradual spread of the rule of law, on the implementation of relief methods, understanding the legislative and judicial in ascension, begin to pay attention to the judicial power to regulate the use, this is the fact the vigorous development of civil execution hearing practice. Hearing with justice, procedural, openness, direct words, characteristics of legal defense, and it has convenient, flexible and standard operation advantage that is very suitable for to be introduced in the implementation of relief. Agencies in the implementation of national force, authority is very strong, but in the implementation of the relief procedures should respect the parties " "Give the parties sufficient procedural rights, and maximize the protection of parties and the parties procedural relief needs. At the same time we must clarify the trial boundaries and the civil trial, the design of matching rules of evidence, in terms of efficiency but also pay attention to their own position, to prevent the abuse of the hearing procedure. In the fourth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee, < > decision a number of major issues on promoting the rule of law pointed out that to improve the judicial system, promote the reform of the pilot implementation of judicial power and executive power. The separation of the day before, the Supreme People's Court promulgated the" on deepening the comprehensive reform of the people's court opinions, including "deepen system reform" has been clearly stated. The study of this paper has a certain practical significance in the implementation of the reform process, forward-looking and operability is strong, hope to regulate the implementation of work Wrbanization. This article from a case of the enforcement hearing, from the perception of our civil execution hearing procedure is lack of legal basis in the case of application, not a rule, the legal effect is unknown and so many problems, this paper introduces the original conception and its objective significance and research methods. The first part of the connotation from the civil execution hearing procedure the sources and characteristics of three aspects, introduced the basic theory of civil execution hearing. The basic situation of the legislation and practice based on the second part of our civil execution hearing procedures in the analysis of more than 10 years of rapid development of civil execution hearing practice, the program has a certain utility value in the course of execution, practice on the other hand also exposed four major problems, the causes of the problem, there are some differences between the executive power and authority of judicature, execution of the hearing There is a contradiction between the final ruling and ruling, there are some other reasons split between the formal review between the neutrality of the enforcement hearing procedures and enforcement of mandatory conflict and enforcement hearing procedures and substantive adjudication are closely connected. The third part is the analysis of Switzerland, Germany, Japan and Taiwan, the four countries or in the civil execution relief system of extraterritorial provisions, obtain some beneficial enlightenment from it. The fourth part is the comprehensive reform of the rule of law, the separation between the judicial power and the executive power under the ink on the implementation of China's civil procedure and improve the path from the value function, the basic principles and rules of procedure the aspects of how to further improve China's civil execution hearing procedure.

【学位授予单位】：江西财经大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D925.1

【相似文献】