民事证据调查令制度探究

发布时间：2018-10-13 16:11

【摘要】：“以事实为依据,以法律为准绳”是民事诉讼的基本原则,人民法院据以做出裁判的事实，必须是有充分证据证明的事实。确实充分的证据是民事诉讼裁判的基础。随着民事审判方式改革的不断深入，我国的民事审判模式由超职权主义模式向当事人主义模式过渡，在2002年4月起实施的《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》更是明确规定了当事人对自已提出的主张有责任提供证据加以证明，否则将承担因举证不能而败诉的风险。至此，法院不再是调查收集证据的主体，当事人成为真正负责收集和提供证据的主体。在当事人主义模式下，不论是原告一方还是被告一方提出主张，都必须自行提供证据加以证明，如何充分行使调查取证权来收集诉讼所需的证据就显得十分重要。然而，由于现行法律规则的缺失，当事人的调查取证权没有得到充分的保障，使法律真实总不能接近客观真实。当事人往往因举证不力而承担败诉的风险。因此，应当积极探索和创新更多的保障当事人证明权实现的法律制度。本文从保障当事人证明权的角度出发，分析我国现行法律对民事案件调查取证方式规定的不足，提出构建民事证据调查令制度的必要性和可行性。结合北京、上海、山东、河南、江苏等地推行民事证据调查令制度的实践，，归纳各地法院在实行民事证据调查令制度时所出现的问题。在借鉴和分析比较大陆法系和英美法系国家相关立法的基础上，对构建民事证据调查令制度提出自已的想法。本文分为五章。第一章主要谈及调查令制度的定义及特征。第二章分析我国实行民事证据调查令制度的背景。第三章以各地法院试行民事证据调查令制度的具体情况为基础，分析调查令制度在试行中存在的问题。第四章借鉴和分析大陆法系国家和英美法系国家的相关制度。第五章谈论构建民事证据调查令制度的几个具体内容。
[Abstract]:"taking facts as the basis and the law as the yardstick" is the basic principle of civil action. The fact on which the people's court makes its judgment must be a fact with sufficient evidence to prove it. Solid and sufficient evidence is the basis of the judgment of civil action. With the deepening of the reform of the civil trial mode, the mode of civil trial in our country has changed from the mode of exceeding authority to the mode of party doctrine. In April 2002, the provisions of the Supreme people's Court on the evidence in civil proceedings clearly stipulated that the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence to prove their claims, otherwise they will bear the risk of losing the lawsuit because of the inability to prove the evidence. At this point, the court is no longer the subject of investigation and collection of evidence, and the parties are truly responsible for collecting and providing evidence. Under the mode of litigant doctrine, both the plaintiff and the defendant must provide evidence to prove it. It is very important to fully exercise the right to investigate and collect evidence. However, due to the lack of current legal rules, the right of the parties to investigate and collect evidence has not been fully protected, which makes the legal truth always not close to the objective truth. The litigants often bear the risk of losing the lawsuit because of the lack of proof. Therefore, we should actively explore and innovate more legal systems to guarantee the realization of the parties' right of proof. From the point of view of protecting the party's right of proof, this paper analyzes the deficiency of the current law of our country on the way of investigation and collection of evidence in civil cases, and puts forward the necessity and feasibility of constructing the system of investigation order of civil evidence. Combined with the practice of carrying out the civil evidence investigation order system in Beijing, Shanghai, Shandong, Henan, Jiangsu and other places, the problems existing in the implementation of the civil evidence investigation order system by local courts are summarized. Based on the analysis and comparison of the relevant legislation between the civil law system and the common law system, the author puts forward his own ideas on the construction of the civil evidence investigation order system. This paper is divided into five chapters. The first chapter mainly deals with the definition and characteristics of investigation order system. The second chapter analyzes the background of the civil evidence investigation order system in China. The third chapter analyzes the problems existing in the trial of the civil evidence investigation order system on the basis of the concrete situation of the trial of the civil evidence investigation order system in various local courts. The fourth chapter draws lessons from and analyzes the relevant systems of civil law countries and common law countries. The fifth chapter discusses the construction of civil evidence investigation order system of several specific content.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.13

【参考文献】