论非正当当事人及其变更

发布时间：2018-07-03 09:14

本文选题：当事人的确定 + 当事人适格　；参考：《华东政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：现代民事诉讼理论已经将民事诉讼当事人界定为纯粹程序法上之概念，即将向法院主张权利的人及其相对人视为当事人，而无需考虑其与实体法律上之利害关系。在此前提下，若在诉讼进行过程中发现了当事人与本案并无实质或者形式上的利害关系，即为非正当当事人，那么诉讼程序的继续进行可能存在合法性问题，对此有必要对诉讼程序进行适当的处理，理论上称之为非正当当事人的变更。我国没有确立非正当当事人概念，对出现非正当当事人后的程序进行方式存在立法空白，实践中对非正当当事人的处理方式比较混乱，存在法官滥用权力、当事人诉权无法保证等弊端。第一部分首先分析了非正当当事人的识别标准及处理模式。理论上，非正当当事人的识别标准有诉讼实施权与当事人适格两种；具体处理模式，一是不允许对非正当当事人进行变更而驳回起诉或驳回其诉讼请求，二是可依职权变更当事人。两种不同处理模式有不同的法理依据。第二部分对非正当当事人变更的域外实践进行考察，以德、日为代表的大陆法系并未就非正当当事人变更问题采取统一的立法规定，而是将其作为任意的当事人变更交由司法实践解决，英美法系则依赖法官的自由裁量权，由法官依职权对其进行变更，而前苏联、俄罗斯法中明确规定了更换非正当当事人的阶段以及具体程序。第三部分对我国非正当当事人变更的历史沿革进行了梳理，并分析了现行《民事诉讼法》删除此项内容的原因。司法实践中对非正当当事人变更采取了多样化的对策，没有统一规定，急需立法对此问题进行回应，，我国理论界也对此问题进行了理论上的构建。第四部分讨论了在我国构建非正当当事人变更制度的具体内容，应当构建协同性的非正当当事人变更制度。在构建过程中需要树立当事人处分权与法官审判权相平衡、程序安定与诉讼效率相平衡、程序正义与实体正义相平衡、法秩序统一以及分配正义的理念。具体的制度内容分为当事人变更的启动程序、变更程序、异议与救济程序等，并规定变更制度产生的主观效果与客观效果。最后一部分讨论了非正当当事人变更制度与我国民事诉讼其他关联制度的衔接，包括与诉的变更制度、诉状更正制度、第三人诉讼制度、共同诉讼制度，以此保障非正当当事人变更制度能够与我国民事诉讼制度相契合。
[Abstract]:The modern theory of civil action has defined the civil litigant as the concept of pure procedural law, that is, the person claiming the right to the court and his counterpart are regarded as the parties, without considering their interest in substantive law. On this premise, if the parties are found to have no substantial or formal interest in the case in the course of the proceedings, that is, the parties concerned are illegitimate parties, then the continuation of the proceedings may have a problem of legality. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with the procedure properly, which is called the change of the improper party in theory. The concept of improper party has not been established in our country, and there is a legislative gap in the way of proceeding after the appearance of the improper party. In practice, the treatment of the improper party is confused, and there is abuse of power by the judge. The litigant's right of action cannot be guaranteed and so on. The first part analyzes the identification standard and treatment mode of non-proper parties. In theory, there are two kinds of identification standards for improper parties: the right to implement litigation and the right of the parties to apply; the specific mode of treatment is to reject the suit or the request for action by not allowing the improper parties to change. Second, the parties can be changed ex officio. Two different processing models have different legal basis. The second part investigates the extraterritorial practice of the change of illegitimate parties. The civil law system, represented by Germany and Japan, has not adopted a unified legislative provision on the issue of the alteration of illegitimate parties. The common law system relied on the discretion of the judge, and the judge changed it ex officio, while the former Soviet Union, Russian law clearly provides for the replacement of improper parties and specific procedures. The third part combs the history of the change of the improper parties and analyzes the reasons for the deletion of this content in the current Civil procedure Law. In judicial practice, various countermeasures have been taken to change the improper parties. There is no uniform regulation, so legislation is urgently needed to respond to this problem, and the theoretical circle of our country has also made a theoretical construction of the problem. In the fourth part, the author discusses the concrete content of constructing the system of unjustified party's alteration in our country, and should construct the cooperative system of unjustified party's change. In the process of construction, it is necessary to establish a balance between the right of disposition of the parties and the judge's jurisdiction, a balance between procedural stability and litigation efficiency, a balance between procedural justice and substantive justice, a unity of law and order, and a concept of distributive justice. The specific content of the system is divided into the starting procedure of the change of the party, the procedure of the change, the procedure of dissent and the procedure of relief, and the subjective and objective effects of the change of the system are stipulated. The last part discusses the connection between the system of alteration of improper parties and other related systems of civil action in our country, including the system of alteration and action, the system of correction of pleadings, the system of third party action, and the system of joint action. In order to ensure that the system of improper parties to change can be consistent with the civil litigation system in China.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.12

【参考文献】