审级视野下证据失权制度研究

发布时间：2018-08-31 10:28

【摘要】：2012年《民事诉讼法》第65条规定于第一编总则中,新举证时限制度可以跨越审级而同时适用于一审、二审程序。2015年2月4日通过并施行的《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉的解释》(以下简称《民诉司法解释》)同样对不同审级程序的证据失权制度进行了统一规范。审级视野下证据失权制度着重探讨当事人未于一审程序中提出的证据而迟于上诉审程序中提出,二审程序将如何对待的问题。本文从立法规范、理论探析的层面,结合司法实践中的相关案例,思考在集中审理主义及证据适时提出主义的框架下,如何将审级视野下证据失权制度扬长避短,发挥最大功效。第一章是对审级视野下证据失权制度的概述。指出审级视野下证据失权制度是指当事人未于一审程序中提交而迟于上诉审程序中始提交的证据,原则上将产生失权制裁的法律效果。同时,沿着制度的发展脉络,对制度的历史沿革进行了介绍,并探讨了制度的适用要件。第二章对审级视野下证据失权制度的正当性基础进行了梳理。提出该制度体现了对当事人履行诉讼促进义务的要求,符合集中审理主义的程序要求,同时也是对诚实信用原则的贯彻和自己责任精神的体现。特别是在我国上诉审程序采续审制的审理方式下,审级视野下证据失权制度有利于降低当事人的上诉率,充实和强化一审程序的事实审功能,实现第一审重心化而减轻二审法院的审理负担。第三章是对域外相关制度的考察与分析。文章首先从美国、德国、日本、我国台湾地区四个角度对域外的相关制度进行了介绍。美国由于采事后审制对待二审程序中的逾期证据最为严格,德国严于我国台湾地区,我国台湾地区严于日本。比较分析之后,笔者发现,立法原则所确立的一审程序与二审程序之关系的差异为上诉审程序失权的宽严奠定了基调,一审程序的充实有效利用是上诉审程序采取失权制裁的重要前提,审前准备程序的充实度和有效程度也决定着审级视野下证据失权制度适用的严格程度。第四章回归到对我国审级视野下证据失权制度的探讨。从制度本身、周边制度、实践操作等几个层面对该制度目前在我国的立法规范与司法实践中存在的问题进行了分析和探讨。考虑到审级视野下证据失权制度发生于上诉审程序阶段,与审级制度相关联,应当采用与一审程序的证据失权制度相差异的程序设计。第五章在对现存问题进行探讨的基础上,结合本文第三部分对域外国家和地区相关制度的介绍和分析,提出了不同审级针对逾期举证采取不同的制裁手段等建议,一审程序可采程序性制裁为主,上诉审程序可采实体性制裁为主。同时,从周边提出强化当事人的证据收集能力,充实审前准备程序,强化法官阐明制度的适用等等优化进路。
[Abstract]:Article 65 of the 2012 Code of Civil procedure provides for the introduction of a new system of time limits for proof in part I of the General provisions, which may extend across the trial level and apply simultaneously to the first instance, Second instance procedure. The interpretation of the Supreme people's Court on the Application of the Civil procedure Law of the people's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Judicial interpretation of the Civil procedure Law of the people's Republic of China) adopted and implemented on February 4, 2015 The power system is unified and standardized. From the perspective of trial level, the system of loss of power of evidence focuses on the issues that the parties did not put forward in the procedure of first instance, but later than those in the procedure of appellate trial, and how the procedure of second instance will be treated. This article from the legislative norm, the theory analysis stratification, unifies the judicial practice correlation case, under the centralized trial doctrine and the evidence timely puts forward the doctrine frame, how to make the evidence lose the right system under the trial level vision to develop the advantage and the circumvent the weakness. Make the best use of it. The first chapter is an overview of the system of loss of power of evidence from the perspective of trial level. It is pointed out that the system of loss of power of evidence from the perspective of trial level refers to the evidence not submitted by the parties in the procedure of first instance but submitted later than the procedure of appeal, which will, in principle, produce the legal effect of the sanction of loss of power. At the same time, along the development of the system, the history of the system is introduced, and the applicable elements of the system are discussed. The second chapter combs the legitimacy basis of evidence loss system in the perspective of trial level. This system embodies the requirements of the parties to fulfill the obligation to promote litigation, in line with the procedural requirements of centralized adjudication, but also the implementation of the principle of good faith and the spirit of their own responsibility. Especially in the trial mode of the continuation of the appellate procedure in our country, the system of losing the right of evidence from the perspective of trial level is helpful to reduce the appeal rate of the parties, and to enrich and strengthen the function of the factual trial of the procedure of first instance. Realize the center of gravity of the first instance and lighten the burden of the trial of the court of second instance. The third chapter is the investigation and analysis of the relevant system. The article first introduces the relevant system from four angles of the United States, Germany, Japan and Taiwan. Due to the strictest treatment of late evidence in the second instance procedure, the United States is stricter than Taiwan in Germany and Japan in Taiwan. After comparative analysis, the author finds that the difference of the relationship between the procedure of first instance and the procedure of second instance established by the principle of legislation sets the tone for the broadness and strictness of the procedure of appellate trial. The substantial and effective use of the procedure of first instance is an important prerequisite for the appellate procedure to take the sanction of loss of power. The degree of fullness and effectiveness of the procedure of pretrial preparation also determines the strict degree of application of the system of loss of power of evidence in the perspective of trial level. The fourth chapter returns to the discussion of the system of evidence losing power under the vision of trial level in our country. From the aspects of system itself, peripheral system, practical operation and so on, this paper analyzes and discusses the problems existing in the current legislative norms and judicial practice of this system in our country. Considering that the system of loss of power of evidence occurs in the stage of appellate procedure and is related to the system of trial grade, the procedure design which is different from the system of loss of power of evidence in first instance procedure should be adopted. Chapter five, on the basis of discussing the existing problems, combining with the introduction and analysis of the foreign countries and regions' relevant systems in the third part of this paper, puts forward some suggestions such as adopting different sanctions against late proof at different trial levels. The procedure of first instance can be subject to procedural sanction, and the procedure of appeal may be subject to substantive sanction. At the same time, the author proposes to strengthen the evidence collection ability of the parties, enrich the pretrial preparation procedure, and strengthen the application of the system.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D925.1

【相似文献】