硕士学位论文：论人民法院依申请调查取证制度的内在矛盾.doc

1、1硕士学位论文（20 届）论人民法院依申请调查取证制度的内在矛盾姓 名学 科 、 专 业 诉 讼 法 学 （ 全 日 制 法 学 硕 士 ）研 究 方 向 民 事 诉 讼 法指 导 教 师论文提交日期2论人民法院依申请调查取证制度的内在矛盾（硕士论文摘要）人民法院依申请调查取证制度以弱化法院职权为理念，强调法院调查取证的被动性和有限性；它是在我国民事诉讼改革过程中形成并不断完善的，经过近十几年的立法和司法实践已经形成了较为完整的制度体系。但是由于形成过程的渐进性，该制度在修补中难免出现前后矛盾和冲突的情况，特别是 2007 年民事诉讼法关于当事人申请再审的修改，更使这些矛盾凸显出来。具体表现在

2、：新的再审规定强化了对人民法院依申请调查取证的监督，但也变相扩大了法院调查取证权，从而使这种对制度的完善与制度本身“去职权化”的理念相矛盾；而人民法院调查取证本身容易造成裁判者中立地位的偏失，与制度所追求的程序正义相矛盾。本文通过对人民法院依申请调查取证制度理论基础的分析，指出了人民法院依申请调查取证存在的必然性和应然性。首先，人民法院依申请调查取证行为是人民法院依据民事诉讼法的规定依法应当履行的义务，它与当事人依据证明责任所进行的调查取证存在明显不同，不能将人民法院认定为与当事人并列的证明责任主体。其次，人民法院依申请调查取证制度的完善和发展应当坚持“去职权化”的方向不变，同时要从人民群众对

3、实体正义的需求和对法院维护公平正义的要求出发，平衡当事人私权自治和法院职权控制的关系，实现程序正义和实体正义的兼顾和协同。最后，针对人民法院依申请调查取证制度存在的问题，本文在总结地方法院司法实践经验和借鉴域外立法的基础上，从两方面提出了未来的发展建议。首先，在完善人民法院依申请调查取证制度本身方面，本文提出人民法院要准确把握对当事人调查取证申请的审查标准，在调查取证中实行调查人员与裁判人员的分离，同时要强化对人民法院依申请调查取证所获得的证据的质证，并要求人民法院履行必要的释明义务；另外，通过规范再审的启动，减少再审对人民法院依申请调查取证行为的不利影响。其次，为了保障人民法院的中立性，我国

4、的民事诉讼改革应当积极构建人民法院依申请调查取证制度的替代性措施。通过对调查令制度的分析和地方法院调查令实施经验的总结，本文提出了建立调查令制度的几点意见；另外，从人民法院依申请调查取证制度存在的根源出3发，建议我国民事诉讼立法对当事人举证予以必要的程序保障，通过赋予当事人必要的证明手段、规定对方当事人和诉讼外第三人的证据妨碍责任和协助调查义务，来解决当事人举证困难的问题。关键词 人民法院依申请调查取证 再审 证明责任 调查令1Discussing the Inner Contradictions of People Court In Accordance with the Applicati

5、on of Investigation and Evidence Collection System（Abstract of LLM Thesis）Based on the concept of Weakening the Court Investigation Authority, People Court In Accordance with the Application of Investigation and Evidence Collection System emphasizes the passivity and limitation of the Investigation

6、by the Court. Which is established and improved in the process of China Civil Procedure Reform, it has formed a relatively complete system after nearly ten years of legislative and judicial practice. However, due to the gradualness of the development, the modification of the system will inevitably l

7、ead to inconsistency and conflict, and “Civil Procedure Law“ amendments about the parties to apply for a retrial in 2007 make it more obvious. Specific performance in: the new provision strengthens the Legal Supervision to Investigation and Evidence Collection By the Court, but also expands the Cour

8、t Investigation Authority in disguised form, which results in contradictions between the improvement on the system and the guiding ideology of Weakening the Court Investigation Authority. In addition, the Investigation and Evidence Collection By the Court easily lead to the loss of Neutrality of the

9、 Judge, which is contradictory to Procedural Justice the system goes in for.In this thesis, the analysis on the theoretical basis of People Court In Accordance with the Application of Investigation and Evidence Collection System, points out its Inevitability and State-should-be. First, the Investiga

10、tion and Evidence Collection By the Court is the courts Statutory obligations according to Civil Procedure Law, which is obviously different from the Proofs Investigation By the Party based on Burden of Proof. So the court cannot be identified as the body of Burden of Proof which is the same as the

11、Parties. Second, People Court In Accordance with the Application of Investigation and Evidence Collection System should persist in the orientation of Weakening the Court Investigation Authority. Meanwhile, with reference to the 2Masses requirement for Substantive Justice and for the court to maintai

12、n fairness and justice, the system should also balance the relationship between the Parties Private-right Autonomy and the court Contral-the process Authority, in order to realize Substantive Justice and Procedural Justice of give attention to two or more things.Finally, problems for People Court In

13、 Accordance with the Application of Investigation and Evidence Collection System, the discussion sets out the future development proposals in two ways, based on summarizing the experience of the grass-roots court judicial practice and drawing on extra-territorial legislation. Firstly, In regard to i

14、mproving People Court In accordance with Application of Investigation and Evidence Collection System, the thesis emphasizes that People Court should have an accurate grasp on standards of the Party application about Investigation and Evidence Collection, and adopt the method of distinguishing the in

15、vestigator from the judge in the implementation of Investigation and Evidence Collection. The Cross-Examination to the proof investigated and collected by the court according to application should be emphasized and regulated. Judge ought to fulfill Clarification-Obligation essentially too. Furthermo

16、re, negative effects from re-trial can be lessened by the regulation of starting-retrial. Secondly, China Civil Procedure Reform should be active in establishing vicarious systems of People Court In Accordance with the Application of Investigation and Evidence Collection Systems, in order to insure

17、Neutrality of the Judge. Based on the anlysis of Investigation Writ legal character and summaries about the implementation of the grass-roots court, discussing on this paper proposes a few points to the establishment of Investigation Writ System. Moreover, from the root cause of People Court In Acco

18、rdance with the Application of Investigation and Evidence Collection System, legislation for Civil Procedure is proposed to set up Procedural Safeguard System for the Parties Investigation and Evidence Collection, which contains providing parties with necessary means of proof, building the legal res

19、ponsibility of Obstruction-of-Evidence and the obligation of Assistance-in-Investigation to the adversary and the third party, so the difficulty from the implementation of Parties Investigation and Evidence Collection will be solved.3Key Words People Court In Accordance with the Application of Inves

20、tigation and Evidence Collection; Retrial; Burden of Proof; Investigation Writ.1目 录导 言 .1第一章 人民法院依申请调查取证制度的法律体系 .2第一节 现行法律关于人民法院依申请调查取证制度的规定 .2第二节 新民事诉讼法对人民法院依申请调查取证 制度的积极意义 .2一、第 179 条第 1 款第（五）项修改的目的 .2二、第 179 条第 1 款第（五）项修改的实质 .3三、第 179 条第 1 款第（五）项修改的意义 .4第二章 人民法院依申请调查取证制度的 内在矛盾及表现 .6第一节 “去职权化”的改革理

21、念与强化再审监督的矛盾 .6一、我国人民法院查证权制度的历史沿革 .6二、矛盾产生的原因及表现 .9第二节 人民法院依申请调查取证制度的目的与其内容的矛盾 .12一、我国人民法院依申请调查取证制度的目的 .12二、人民法院依申请调查取证的行为与裁判者中立原则、当事人参与原则以及程序平等原则的矛盾 .13三、新的再审规定与程序正义的矛盾 .15第三章 人民法院依申请调查取证制度的理论概述 .20第一节 人民法院依申请调查取证行为的原理 .20一、人民法院依申请调查取证行为的性质 .20二、人民法院依申请调查取证行为与当事人举证的关系 .23第二节 人民法院依申请调查取证制度的意义 .24一、人民

22、法院依申请调查取证制度有利于推动我国民事诉讼改革 .24二、人民法院依申请调查取证制度有利于程序公正的实现 .25三、人民法院依申请调查取证制度有利于实体正义的探究 .26第三节 人民法院依申请调查取证制度的应然定位 .26一、从民事诉讼改革上看 .272二、从程序正义与实体正义的关系上看 .28三、从人民法院司法审判的任务来看 .29四、从我国的法治国情来看 .29第四章 人民法院依申请调查取证制度的展望 .31第一节 完善人民法院依申请调查取证制度 .31一、关于人民法院行使依申请调查取证权的几点建议 .31二、2007 年民事诉讼法第 179 条第 1 款第（五）项的完善 .38第二节 构建人民法院依申请调查取证制度的替代性制度 .40一、建立和完善调查令制度 .40二、完善当事人调查取证权利的保障措施 .43结 论 .45参考文献 .46在读期间发表的学术论文与研究成果 .48后 记 .49