我国法院副卷公开问题研究

发布时间：2018-08-23 19:37

【摘要】：司法公开是宪法和法律确认的一项基本原则,是社会公众知晓、监督司法的重要途径,只有公开、透明才能揭开司法神秘的面纱,才能确保司法公正和公信。司法公开作为司法改革的重中之重,近年来进展地如火如荼,从三大平台建设的裁判文书公开平台建设、执行信息公开平台建设、审判流程公开平台建设到六大公开的立案公开、文书公开、庭审公开、听证公开、审务公开、执行公开,我国司法公开的内容及范围在不断扩大。就目前已经使用的公开手段来看,裁判文书上网公开制度、直播录播庭审制度、新闻媒体旁听制度等等一系列制度措施已经取得了良好的成绩,可以说我国司法公开工作正在稳步、有序地进行。尽管如此,就目前已经公开的内容来看,还有一部分应纳入司法公开范围的事项未被公开。而为人们所诟病,被称为"保护伞"的"副卷"便是这样的存在。就现有规定来看,法院卷宗分为正卷和副卷两部分,正卷允许当事人进行查阅并且对外公开,副卷除特殊情况外不允许任何单位及个人进行查阅且不对外公开。副卷的不公开属性使得副卷成为无法对外公开的各种材料的"收容地"。在司法实践中,副卷的不公开性衍生出了一系列的问题,它在一定程度上破坏了司法的公正性,因此副卷的存废或者改革问题亟待讨论。诚然,副卷中一些材料的存在反映了外来力量对司法权独立行使的干预,但副卷卷宗由若干文书材料组成,并非其中所有的内容都扮演着这样的角色,如果将副卷中所有材料一应公开,那么司法的权威性或将受到不合理的挑衅,且无限度司法公开会对法院造成巨大压力,引发上访、缠诉,不符合我国目前的司法环境。因此,在不破坏司法权威且进一步提升司法公信的基础上,应对副卷内容有条件的进行合理化公开。司法公开这一论题无论对于理论学术界亦或是司法实务界来说都并不陌生,关于司法公开的文章也比比皆是。但是在司法公开视角下对副卷公开问题进行讨论的文章却寥寥无几。就现有的文献来看,除了一些报道和文章外,几乎没有人专门对正副卷制度进行研究,仅有的一些文章也多是对副卷的不公开性进行诟病,但也并未对其进行详细阐述分析,而且正副卷制度作为中国特色,没有可供参考的国外相关制度。此外,除一些概括性规定外,关于正副卷的立法基本空白。笔者意图通过对我国法院正副卷内容的讨论,为副卷公开的改革提供一定的参考意见,也为司法公开范围的扩大提供方向。本文通过理论结合实践,以抽样调研的方式,对法院各类卷宗进行抽样分析、归纳总结,依据现有规定及实际情况明确副卷中具体包括的内容并通过讨论副卷中各类诉讼文书是否应当公开,最终对我国法院副卷的公开方式提出构想。
[Abstract]:Judicial openness is a basic principle confirmed by constitution and law. It is an important way for the public to know and supervise the administration of justice. Only by being open and transparent can the mysterious veil of judicature be opened and judicial justice and public trust be ensured. Judicial openness, as the most important part of judicial reform, has made great progress in recent years, from the construction of the open platform of three platforms to the construction of open platform for judicial documents, and the construction of public platform for implementation of information. The open platform of trial process has been built to six open cases, open documents, open trial, open hearing, open trial, open execution, and the content and scope of judicial openness in our country is expanding. With regard to the open means that have been used at present, a series of system measures, such as the open system of online access to adjudicative documents, the system of live recording and broadcasting of court hearings, the system of listening to the news media, and so on, have already achieved good results. It can be said that China's judicial publicity work is steadily, orderly. Nevertheless, there are still some matters that should be included in the scope of judicial disclosure, in terms of what has been made public so far. The paraphrase, known as the umbrella, is such a being. As far as the existing regulations are concerned, the court file is divided into two parts: the positive volume allows the parties to consult and open to the public, and the subsidiary volume does not allow any unit or individual to consult and not open to the public except for special circumstances. The undisclosed nature of the secondary volume makes it a "shelter" for all kinds of materials that cannot be made public. In judicial practice, there are a series of problems arising from the non-public nature of the subsidiary volume, which to a certain extent destroys the justice of the judiciary, so the issue of the retention or the reform of the subsidiary volume needs to be discussed urgently. It is true that the existence of some of the materials in the sub-volume reflects the interference of external forces in the independent exercise of judicial power, but the sub-volume consists of a number of clerical materials, not all of which play such a role. If all the materials in the subsidiary volume should be made public, then the judicial authority may be subjected to unreasonable provocation, and the unlimited judicial publicity will cause great pressure on the court and cause petition and entanglement, which does not accord with the current judicial environment of our country. Therefore, on the basis of not destroying the judicial authority and further enhancing the judicial public trust, the contents of the secondary volume should be rationalized and made public. The topic of judicial openness is no stranger to the academic circle or the judicial practice circle, and the articles on judicial openness are everywhere. But from the perspective of judicial openness, there are few articles to discuss the issue of the publication of secondary volumes. As far as the existing literature is concerned, in addition to some reports and articles, almost no one has specifically studied the system of primary and secondary volumes. Most of the only articles have been criticized for their non-openness, but they have not been elaborated and analyzed in detail. Moreover, as Chinese characteristics, there is no relevant foreign system for reference. In addition, in addition to some general provisions, the legislation on the basic blank. The author intends to provide some reference opinions for the reform of the opening of the secondary volume through the discussion of the contents of the court and vice-volume of our country, and also to provide the direction for the expansion of the scope of judicial publicity. In this paper, through the combination of theory and practice, with the way of sampling and investigation, we analyze and summarize all kinds of court files. According to the existing regulations and the actual situation, this paper clarifies the contents of the subsidiary volume and discusses whether all kinds of litigation documents in the subsidiary volume should be made public, and finally puts forward some ideas on the way of opening the subsidiary volume of the court in our country.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D926.22

【相似文献】