论我国民事举证时限制度中对法官自由裁量的规制

发布时间：2018-11-04 08:48

【摘要】：新修民事诉讼法第六十五条，以法律条文形式正式规定民事举证时限制度，对当事人逾期举证情况设定多种法律后果，但人民法院对逾期举证的“不同情形”应当如何把握、如何裁量未有明确规定。过大的法官自由裁量权不利于保障当事人诉讼权利。因此，本文从保障当事人权利出发，从法官自由裁量角度解读民事举证时限制度，以证据失权的适用条件为切入角，探讨该制度中对法官自由裁量的规制。全文除引言、结语外，共分三部分。第一部分是提出问题，即民事举证时限制度中规制法官自由裁量的必要性。简要介绍法官自由裁量和举证时限制度；提出在民事举证时限制度中赋予法官自由裁量权，既是举证时限制度的应有之义，又是法官自由裁量范围的扩大。说明在民事举证时限制度中对法官自由裁量的规制，目的是保障当事人诉讼权利；重点是法官把握证据失权要件。第二部分是分析问题，分析该制度在我国的现状和考察该制度在域外的相关规定。首先从我国的法律规定和司法实践两方面对该制度在我国的现状分析；其次了解各国各地区对该制度的不同规定，探求各国各地区制定该制度差异背后的本质，以及在逾期举证中对法官自由裁量的具体规制。最后小结我国该制度设定的走向。第三部分是解决问题，，即从价值取向和制度构建上设想对法官自由裁量的规制。在价值取向上，结合各国各地区对该制度价值追求分析和我国国情来指导我国举证时限中对法官自由裁量规制的价值取向。在制度构建上，结合我国该制度价值取向和该制度在我国运行的实践，从当事人举证前、当事人举证时、当事人举证后三阶段，即从预防、控制、救济三方面对法官自由裁量规制进行构建设想。
[Abstract]:Article 65 of the new Civil procedure Law, which formally prescribes the civil time limit of proof in the form of legal provisions, sets a variety of legal consequences on the situation of late proof by the parties, but how should the people's court grasp the "different circumstances" of the late proof, Discretion is not clearly defined. Excessive discretion of judges is not conducive to the protection of litigant rights. Therefore, this article from the protection of the rights of the parties, from the perspective of discretion of the judge to interpret the civil time limit system, with evidence loss of the applicable conditions as the angle, to explore the system of discretion of the judge regulation. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the full text is divided into three parts. The first part is to raise the question, that is, the necessity of regulating the judge's discretion in the civil time limit of proof. This paper briefly introduces the system of the judge's discretion and the time limit of proof, and puts forward that giving the judge's discretion in the civil system of the time limit of proof is not only the proper meaning of the system of the time limit of proof, but also the expansion of the scope of the judge's discretion. The purpose of this paper is to protect the litigant's right of action, and the emphasis is to grasp the elements of the loss of the right of evidence. The second part is an analysis of the current situation of the system in China and the relevant provisions of the system. Firstly, it analyzes the current situation of this system in our country from the aspects of legal regulation and judicial practice. Secondly, we understand the different provisions of the system in different countries and regions, explore the essence behind the differences in the formulation of the system in different countries and regions, as well as the specific regulation of the discretion of judges in the late proof. Finally, the author summarizes the trend of this system in our country. The third part is to solve the problem, that is to assume the regulation of judge discretion from value orientation and system construction. In terms of value orientation, combined with the analysis of the value pursuit of the system in various countries and regions and the national conditions of our country, we can guide the value orientation of the discretionary regulation of the judge in the time limit of proof in our country. In the construction of the system, combining the value orientation of the system and the practice of the system in our country, from the parties to the evidence before, when the parties to the proof, the parties after the three stages of proof, that is, from the prevention, control, Three aspects of relief for the construction of discretionary regulation of judges.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.1

【参考文献】