论我国民事诉讼审级制度之重构

发布时间：2018-04-26 14:44

本文选题：审级制度 + 初审法院　；参考：《江西财经大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：我国以四级两审终审制为主体的民事诉讼审级制度,由于在确立之初缺乏充足的理论准备和实践经验积累,在审级制度概念以及价值追求上未形成统一认识,以致在后来长期的司法实践中存在终审不终、地区间裁判各异、缠诉信访等严重影响司法公信力的突出问题。本文从分析审级制度概念入手,深入分析我国民事诉讼审级制度发展脉络,比较研究两大法系民事诉讼审级制度规则体系,重新界定了审级制度作为体系化概念的内涵与外延,揭示了我国民事诉讼审级制度的形成轨迹与生成规律,着重研究了两大法系在审级制度趋同背景下所反映的共同价值追求,并在此基础上提出固定初审管辖法院、建立三审终审、界定初审及上诉审审判范围等改革设想。审级制度与终审制度不是同一概念,从外延上看,审级制度应作为一个体系化概念而存在,终审制度只是这个体系中最突出的一个环节。民事诉讼审级制度应包括法院建制、民事案件一审管辖、上下审级的审理范围、民事案件的终审程序、终审判决的纠错程序等五个方面的内容,在一国法院建制相对固定的情况下,以初审法院的一审管辖为审级制度的逻辑起点。对审级制度概念的认识不足,造成我国当前立法与司法的冲突严重,法院行政级别代替了审级层级,再审申诉案件居高不下,终审程序形同虚设,地方保护主义借此干预司法,法院的司法权威受到巨大挑战。我国古代审级制度内容完整,对审判机关而言有复审、上请制度,实现上下审级之间的内在监督;对当事人而言可逐级上诉,且不限审级,以此实现上下审级的外部监督;而作为有效补充的直诉制度,当事人通过这种非常规上诉方式直接向更高审级单位提出上诉,以满足我国百姓自古就有的对审级利益的朴素追求。经过清末变法,四级三审制的近代审级制度初具雏形,民国先后历经北洋政府和南京政府,政局几经周折,但还是始终保留了 “三审终审制”的审级制度模型,尽管在司法实践过程中因为受战乱、经费、人员等因素的影响,审级制度有所变通,但“三审终审制”的基本构造仍作为基本审判制度得以保留。现行四级两审终审制审级架构经过大分区法院存废、终审程序裁撤以及行署法院向中级法院转变等立法和司法实践后得以建立,但存在实践经验积累不够、理论准备不足、过分迁就地理因素等先天弊端。以英、美和法、德为代表的两大法系国家,在民事诉讼审级制度的具体内容上虽不尽相同,但审级制度均以体系化架构而存在,并在规则体系方面却呈现出一审案件集中管辖、固定上诉审法院职能、区分初审、上诉审审判范围、设置高级法院或最高法院三审终审的基本构造和实行再审准入制度等趋同特征。两大法系趋同的审级制度设计反映出共同的构造原理,包括:维护程序独立价值,保证程序功能的有效发挥;实现司法统一性价值,保证法律实施的统一性和权威性;保障司法正确性价值,确保上下审级之间的相互监督与制约;协调司法的终局性与正当性,实现终审判决终局效力与终审程序审级分配的有机结合。而这些构造原理,对我国民事诉讼审级制度改革具有重要指导意义。我国民事诉讼审级制度的重构,首先应从改革初审法院管辖权开始,实现上、下级法院层级优化;其次应建立四级三审终审程序构造,相应地区分初审与上诉审的审判范围,实现上下审级之间的职能优化;再次还应改革民事再审程序,让再审回归当事人诉权范围,设置再审准入制度,维护终审判决的终局效力,从根本上提升法院的司法公信力。
[Abstract]:In our country, the system of civil litigation trial, which is the main body of the four class and two trial final trial system, has not formed a unified understanding of the concept of the trial level system and the pursuit of value in the early period of the establishment, so that there is no final trial in the later judicial practice, the judges are different in the region, and the complaint letters and visits are strict. This article, starting with the analysis of the concept of the trial level system, analyzes the development of the civil litigation trial level system in our country, compares the rules system of the two legal system of civil litigation, and redefines the connotation and extension of the system as the concept of the system, and reveals the civil procedure trial level system in our country. The formation path and the law of formation of the degree are focused on the study of the common value pursuit reflected by the two legal systems in the context of the convergence of the trial level system, and on this basis, we propose a fixed initial trial jurisdiction court, establish the final trial of the three trial, and define the scope of the initial trial and the scope of the appeal trial. The concept of the trial level system and the final trial system is not the same concept, from the extension of the system. On the other hand, the system of trial class should exist as a systematic concept. The system of final trial is only one of the most prominent links in this system. The system of civil procedure trial level should include five aspects, namely, the establishment of the court, the jurisdiction of the first instance of the civil case, the scope of the trial at the upper and lower levels, the final trial procedure of the civil case, the error correction procedure of the final judgment, etc. When the establishment of a country's court is relatively fixed, the first instance jurisdiction of the first instance court is the logical starting point of the trial level system. The lack of understanding of the concept of the trial level system leads to the serious conflict between the current legislation and the judicature in our country. The administrative level of the court has replaced the level of the trial level, the case of retrial appeals is high, the procedure of final trial is empty and the local protection is protected. In order to intervene in the judicature, the judicial authority of the court has been greatly challenged. The ancient trial level system in our country has a complete content, retrial for the judicial organs, and the system is requested to realize the internal supervision between the upper and lower levels; to the parties, it can be appealed and not limited to the level of the trial level, in order to achieve the external supervision of the upper and lower levels; and as an effective supplement. Through this unconventional appeal, the parties directly appealed to the higher trial level units to meet the simple pursuit of the interests of the people of our country from ancient times. After the late Qing Dynasty, the modern trial level system of the four level and three trial system had begun to take shape. The Republic of China was successively passed through the Beiyang government and the Nanjing government, and the political situation was a few times. But still retained the "three trial system" system model of the trial level, although in the process of judicial practice, because of the influence of war, funds, personnel and other factors, the trial level system has been changed, but the basic structure of the "final trial system of the three trial" is still retained as the basic trial system. The existing structure of the current four level two trial final trial system is large. The two major legal system countries represented by the British, the United States and the law and Germany are in the concrete inside of the civil litigation system. Although the capacity is not the same, the system of trial grade exists in a systematic framework, and in the rule system, it presents the centralized jurisdiction of the first instance cases, fixed the appeal and court function, distinguish the first instance, the scope of the appeal trial, set the basic structure of the three trial of the Supreme Court or the Supreme Court, and the system of the admittance of the retrial, and so on. Two The design of the trial level system of the convergence of the law system reflects the common structure principle, including: maintaining the independent value of the procedure, ensuring the effective function of the procedure, realizing the value of judicial unity, ensuring the unity and authority of the legal implementation, guaranteeing the value of the judicial correctness, ensuring the mutual supervision and restriction between the upper and lower levels, and coordinating the end of the judicature. In order to realize the organic combination of the final validity of the final adjudication and the distribution of the final trial procedure, these structural principles have important guiding significance to the reform of the civil procedure trial level system in our country. Secondly, we should establish the structure of the final trial procedure of the four level and three trial. The corresponding area should be divided into the trial scope of the first trial and the appeal trial, and the function optimization between the upper and lower trial level should be realized; the civil retrial procedure should be reformed to return the retrial to the litigant scope, set up the retrial admittance system, and maintain the final validity of the final trial and fundamentally improve the court's division. Legal credibility.

【学位授予单位】：江西财经大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.1

【参考文献】