论我国民事诉讼举证时限制度的完善
发布时间：2019-05-18 07:07
【摘要】：举证时限制度在我国实践当中已实际运行了较长的一段时间,在其运行过程中,我国不断进行研究和探索,发现问题解决问题,逐渐对这一制度进行了丰富,使之适应我国国情。我国2012年颁布的《民事诉讼法》和2015年的《民事诉讼法司法解释》都对举证时限制度进行了调整和规定,但是,无论从制度设计还是实际运行上看,现行的举证时限制度都存在着一定的不足,尚且需要进行进一步的完善,使之能够充分适应我国国情和现代诉讼理念,充分发挥其制度功能。建立在诚实信用原则、诉讼经济理念以及程序安定的理论基础之上的举证时限制度具有保证诉讼公平、促进当事人和解以及保证裁判稳定的功能,域外的部分国家和地区的这一制度产生和发展较早,已形成了相对成熟的制度体系,如英国的诉答程序和证据开示制度、美国的强制开示制度以及庭前会议制度,以及德国独特的法定庭审请求权、日本的当事人照会制度等。我国的举证时限制度在建国初期处于不存在的状态,直到2001年最高人民法院颁布了《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》,以司法解释的形式首次对举证时限制度进行规定,并且经2008年最高人民法院《关于适用民事诉讼证据的若干规定中有关举证时限规定的通知》、2012年《民事诉讼法》、2015年《民事诉讼法司法解释》的补充和完善,逐渐形成了现有的举证时限制度的体系。由于受传统观念的影响以及制度设计方面的不足之处,导致现行的举证时限制度与实践之间不能很好的协调,如对强制答辩制度、证据交换制度和庭前会议制度等相关配套制度设计的不足或缺失,以及在对证据采纳与否的判定上,判定标准的不明确和不合理导致法官有着过大的自由裁量权,等这些都在阻碍举证时限制度功能的正常发挥,致使该制度无法充分实现其价值。通过对这一制度的研究,结合域外的实践经验可以发现,真正意义上建立强制答辩制度,保证当事人之间真正进行充分的信息交流,并且对证据交换的相关规定进行完善,以确保证据交换的进行和作用的充分发挥。对配套的庭前会议制度加以完善,充实其内容,使庭前会议的启动方式多样化,并且明确其在案件处理过程中的地位,确保其功能的发挥。充分发挥法官释明权的作用,确保当事人能够在充分知情的情况下主动而完全的行使其相应权利、履行法律义务。同时对我国现行的依据逾期证据与案件事实是否相关来作为法院采纳与否的判定标准进行修改,以切实保障这一制度设置的意义,提高诉讼效率。从而使举证时限制度能够发挥其应有的作用,促进我国民事诉讼的进步。
[Abstract]:The time limit system of proof has been in operation for a long time in the practice of our country. In the course of its operation, our country has continuously carried on the research and the exploration, found the problem to solve the problem, has gradually carried on the rich to this system. Adapt it to the national conditions of our country. Both the Civil procedure Law promulgated in 2012 and the Judicial interpretation of Civil procedure Law in 2015 have adjusted and stipulated the time limit system for proof. However, whether from the point of view of system design or actual operation, There are some shortcomings in the current time limit system of proof, which needs to be further improved so that it can fully adapt to the national conditions and modern litigation concept of our country and give full play to its system function. The time limit system of proof, which is based on the principle of good faith, the economic concept of litigation and the theory of procedural stability, has the functions of ensuring the fairness of litigation, promoting the reconciliation of the parties and ensuring the stability of the judgment. This system came into being and developed earlier in some countries and regions outside the country, and has formed a relatively mature system, such as the system of complaint procedure and evidence disclosure in the United Kingdom, the compulsory system of disclosure in the United States and the system of pre-court meetings. As well as Germany's unique legal court claim, Japan's party note system and so on. The time limit system of proof in our country was in a state that did not exist in the early days of the founding of the people's Republic of China, until the Supreme people's Court promulgated some provisions on evidence in Civil procedure in 2001, and stipulated the time limit system of proof for the first time in the form of judicial interpretation. And after the notice of the Supreme people's Court in 2008 on the time limit for proof in certain provisions on the Application of evidence in Civil Litigation, the supplement and perfection of the Civil procedure Law in 2012 and the Judicial interpretation of the Civil procedure Law in 2015, Gradually formed the existing system of proof time limit system. Due to the influence of traditional concepts and the shortcomings of system design, the current time limit system of proof can not be well coordinated with practice, such as the compulsory defense system. The deficiency or lack of the design of the relevant supporting systems, such as the evidence exchange system and the pre-court meeting system, as well as the decision of whether the evidence is accepted or not, the unclear and unreasonable judgment standards lead to the judges having too much discretion. All these are hindering the normal function of the time limit system of proof, so that the system can not fully realize its value. Through the study of this system, combined with the practice experience outside the country, we can find that the compulsory defense system can be established in a real sense to ensure the full exchange of information between the parties, and the relevant provisions of the exchange of evidence can be improved. In order to ensure the exchange of evidence and the full play of the role. The supporting pre-court meeting system is improved, its content is enriched, the starting mode of the pre-court meeting is diversified, and its position in the process of handling the case is clarified, so as to ensure the play of its function. Give full play to the role of the judge's right of interpretation to ensure that the parties can take the initiative and fully exercise their corresponding rights and fulfill their legal obligations with full knowledge. At the same time, the current criterion of whether the overdue evidence is related to the facts of the case is modified as the criterion of whether the court adopts it or not, in order to ensure the significance of this system and improve the efficiency of litigation. So that the time limit system of proof can play its due role and promote the progress of civil litigation in our country.
【学位授予单位】：安徽大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.1
本文编号：2479778
[Abstract]:The time limit system of proof has been in operation for a long time in the practice of our country. In the course of its operation, our country has continuously carried on the research and the exploration, found the problem to solve the problem, has gradually carried on the rich to this system. Adapt it to the national conditions of our country. Both the Civil procedure Law promulgated in 2012 and the Judicial interpretation of Civil procedure Law in 2015 have adjusted and stipulated the time limit system for proof. However, whether from the point of view of system design or actual operation, There are some shortcomings in the current time limit system of proof, which needs to be further improved so that it can fully adapt to the national conditions and modern litigation concept of our country and give full play to its system function. The time limit system of proof, which is based on the principle of good faith, the economic concept of litigation and the theory of procedural stability, has the functions of ensuring the fairness of litigation, promoting the reconciliation of the parties and ensuring the stability of the judgment. This system came into being and developed earlier in some countries and regions outside the country, and has formed a relatively mature system, such as the system of complaint procedure and evidence disclosure in the United Kingdom, the compulsory system of disclosure in the United States and the system of pre-court meetings. As well as Germany's unique legal court claim, Japan's party note system and so on. The time limit system of proof in our country was in a state that did not exist in the early days of the founding of the people's Republic of China, until the Supreme people's Court promulgated some provisions on evidence in Civil procedure in 2001, and stipulated the time limit system of proof for the first time in the form of judicial interpretation. And after the notice of the Supreme people's Court in 2008 on the time limit for proof in certain provisions on the Application of evidence in Civil Litigation, the supplement and perfection of the Civil procedure Law in 2012 and the Judicial interpretation of the Civil procedure Law in 2015, Gradually formed the existing system of proof time limit system. Due to the influence of traditional concepts and the shortcomings of system design, the current time limit system of proof can not be well coordinated with practice, such as the compulsory defense system. The deficiency or lack of the design of the relevant supporting systems, such as the evidence exchange system and the pre-court meeting system, as well as the decision of whether the evidence is accepted or not, the unclear and unreasonable judgment standards lead to the judges having too much discretion. All these are hindering the normal function of the time limit system of proof, so that the system can not fully realize its value. Through the study of this system, combined with the practice experience outside the country, we can find that the compulsory defense system can be established in a real sense to ensure the full exchange of information between the parties, and the relevant provisions of the exchange of evidence can be improved. In order to ensure the exchange of evidence and the full play of the role. The supporting pre-court meeting system is improved, its content is enriched, the starting mode of the pre-court meeting is diversified, and its position in the process of handling the case is clarified, so as to ensure the play of its function. Give full play to the role of the judge's right of interpretation to ensure that the parties can take the initiative and fully exercise their corresponding rights and fulfill their legal obligations with full knowledge. At the same time, the current criterion of whether the overdue evidence is related to the facts of the case is modified as the criterion of whether the court adopts it or not, in order to ensure the significance of this system and improve the efficiency of litigation. So that the time limit system of proof can play its due role and promote the progress of civil litigation in our country.
【学位授予单位】：安徽大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.1
【参考文献】
相关硕士学位论文 前4条
1 李浩;论民事诉讼当事人逾期举证的法律后果[D];山西大学;2015年
2 温琴;论举证时限制度实践与立法的调适[D];昆明理工大学;2015年
3 张持;我国民事诉讼举证时限制度研究[D];内蒙古大学;2014年
4 王家毅;民事强制答辩制度研究[D];内蒙古大学;2011年
，本文编号：2479778
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/susongfa/2479778.html
