当事人申请法院调查取证制度研析

发布时间：2018-04-11 02:40

本文选题：当事人 + 申请法院调查取证制度　；参考：《湘潭大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：在诉讼当中,证据的重要地位不言而喻。是否有充足的、恰当的证据来支撑和论证自己的诉讼请求,直接决定着当事人的合法权益是否能够得到应有的维护和保障。但是当事人在具体取证过程中并非总是能够一帆风顺,可能陷入“力不从心”的困境,故立法上设立当事人申请法院调查取证制度。当事人申请法院调查取证作为当事人收集证据手段之一,如果能够确保该项制度运行良好,则具有增强其证据收集力,实现证据收集力与证明责任统一,保障法院查明案件真相的重要意义。恰逢其会,2012年《民事诉讼法》、2015年《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼法的解释》(以下简称《民诉法解释》)相继施行,关于当事人申请法院调查取证制度方面呈现较大变动,如将申请调查收集证据的时间改为“举证期限届满前”,同时,新增审查申请的标准,即当事人申请调查的证据,若与待证事实无关联、对待证事实无意义,法院应不予许可。法律条文上的变动必将为司法实务带来影响,或者说其合理程度将于司法实践中得到检验。经观察,在司法实务当中,尚存在如下问题:法院拒绝调查取证申请的案件较多;新增审查标准之间关系不明;法院对于不予许可调查取证申请的理由陈述不清;当事人以法院拒绝申请为由上诉的案件增多。这些问题的存在表明该项制度在具体司法实践中运行不良,甚至存在“虚化”的可能性。如此,则该项制度之应有价值难以充分实现。通过进一步分析,其问题根源主要在于以下几方面:“实体公正”理念向“司法效益”理念转变;法院与当事人间存在利益冲突;当事人和法官于待证事实认知上存在差异;具体配套制度构建尚不完善;法律概念模糊及条文歧义等原因。为解决上述现有问题,首先应回归制度设置初衷以确立指导价值理念—维护当事人权益;并明确审查标准间关系,实现宽松化审查;明确具体标准;完善救济程序;改变法院调查取证方式;建设法官问责制度;完善法官阐明制度。通过以上措施合力推动当事人申请法院调查取证制度健康运行,保证其良性发展,实现其制度预设功能。
[Abstract]:In litigation, the important position of evidence is self-evident.Whether there are sufficient and appropriate evidence to support and demonstrate their claims directly determines whether the legitimate rights and interests of the parties can be safeguarded and protected.However, the parties are not always able to obtain evidence in the process of smooth sailing, may fall into the plight of "unable to do", so legislation to establish the litigants application for court investigation and evidence collection system.If the parties apply to the court to investigate and collect evidence as one of the means for the parties to collect evidence, if they can ensure that the system works well, it will enhance their ability to collect evidence and realize the unity of the power of collecting evidence and the burden of proof.The importance of guaranteeing the court the truth of the case.Coinciding with its meeting, the 2012 Civil procedure Law, the 2015 interpretation of the Supreme people's Court on the Civil procedure Law (hereinafter referred to as "the interpretation of the Civil procedure Law") has been implemented one after another, and the system of litigants applying for court investigation and collection of evidence has shown great changes.If the time for application for investigation and collection of evidence is changed to "before the expiry of the time limit for proof", at the same time, a new criterion for examining the application is added, that is, if the parties apply for evidence of investigation, if there is no connection with the facts to be proved and there is no point in treating the facts of the evidence, the court should not grant permission.The change of legal provisions will bring influence to judicial practice, or its reasonable degree will be tested in judicial practice.It is observed that in judicial practice there are still the following problems: there are more cases where the court refuses to investigate the application for evidence; the relationship between the new examination criteria is not clear; the court is not clear about the reasons for not granting the application for investigation of evidence;The number of cases in which the parties appealed on the grounds that the court refused the application increased.The existence of these problems indicates that the system does not work well in the concrete judicial practice, and even exists the possibility of "vanity".In this way, the value of the system should not be fully realized.Through further analysis, the root of the problem lies in the following aspects: the transformation of the concept of "substantial justice" to the concept of "judicial benefit"; the conflict of interests between the court and the parties; the difference between the parties and the judges in the cognition of the facts to be proved;The concrete supporting system construction is not perfect, the legal concept is vague and the article is ambiguous and so on.In order to solve the above problems, first of all, we should return to the original intention of setting up the system in order to establish the guiding value concept-to safeguard the rights and interests of the parties, and clearly examine the relationship between standards, realize the lenient examination, clarify the specific standards, perfect the relief procedures;To change the way of court investigation and collection of evidence; to build the system of judges' accountability; to perfect the system of clarification of judges.Through the above measures to promote the litigants to apply for court investigation and evidence system to run healthily, to ensure its benign development, to achieve its system presupposition function.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.1

【参考文献】