【作者】 杨瑞；

【导师】 赵钢；

【作者基本信息】 武汉大学 ， 民商法， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 审级制度是一国司法制度的重要内容,不论在民事诉讼、刑事诉讼抑或行政诉讼中,审级制度均体现着程序制度的基本理念,实现着对程序公正性的保障。在学界有关审级制度已有的研究中,基本着眼于狭义上审级的构建,即按照法律的规定,一个民事案件经过几个不同级别法院的审理后其裁判才产生既判力的问题。至于在审级构建的框架内,不同审级的权力如何科学合理配置,尤其是如何实现不同审级之间的相互制约,则鲜有研究者。而事实上,审级制约机制设计的科学与否,直接关涉到审级建构目标和上诉审功能能否得以实现。科学合理的审级制约机制,能够在最大程度上通过程序的自治实现初审和上诉审之间的相互制约,这种制约关系及其作用的发挥能够有效限制不同审级法官的恣意,并最终维护司法的正确性、终局性和统一性。由此可见,对民事审级制约机制的研究具有重要的理论意义和实践价值。有鉴于此,本文将遵循辩证分析、比较分析、理论分析、规则分析与实证分析相结合的研究方法,在此基础上分别对民事审级制约机制构建的基本原理、民事程序系统内不同民事审级制约机制之基本理论、各国民事审级制约机制之比较及其共同原理、我国民事审级制约机制之现状及其完善等问题进行分析阐述,以期对审级问题和上诉审问题的研究以及我国民事审判权通过程序自治实现内部白控的构建提供一个独特的视角和一种崭新的思路。本文共分六章：作为理论研究的起点,第一章是有关民事审级制约机制的一般理论。所谓民事审级制约,是指依照民事诉讼法所规定的审级程序,通过对不同审级审判资源及审判权力的均衡合理配置,并借助于案件裁判在上下级法院之间所建立的一种双向的相互制约机制。通过这种双向制约机制的发挥,使得上级法院在监督下级法院的同时,其自身的权力也处于下级法院的监督之下。从世界各国情况来看,司法程序内的纠错程序与过滤机制主要是审级制约机制。民事审级制约机制不仅存在于审级之中,更重要的是,它还存在于与审级制度相关的程序制度之中。从范围来看,民事审级制约机制贯穿于从审判启动至裁判作出整个审判过程的始终。总体而言,民事审级制约机制应由以下不同的机制构成：(1)审级启动制约机制,其主要表现为对上诉审启动条件的限制；(2)审判模式制约机制,其具体体现为民事第二审上诉的模式；(3)审判范围制约机制,其体现为对上诉案件审理范围的限制；(4)审判权配置制约机制,其通过不同审级的职能分层得以实现；(5)裁判范围制约机制,其主要体现以当事人处分权为原理基础的禁止不利益变更原则；(6)裁判方式制约机制,其中发回重审之裁判方式最能直接反映上诉审之裁判方式制约机制设置得科学与否。任何一项制度的合理存在,均须具备支撑其得以合理存在的相关理论基础,民事审级制约机制也不例外。笔者认为,支撑民事审级制约机制得以科学构建的理论基础包括以下几个方面：(1)审级独立理论。审级独立是司法独立的上下结构要求,是审级制度的应有之义。审级制约机制的存在非但不会妨碍司法独立和审级独立的实现,相反,它还是司法独立和审级独立的必然要求。(2)系统自治力理论。如果把系统自治力理论运用到司法审判这一相对独立的系统,便可以发现,司法审判系统也遵循着“审判自治”的理论,能够通过系统内部制约的方式来解决权力的滥用问题。在司法系统内部,通过程序法对不同审级权力的配置及不同级别法院关系的界定,便形成了不同审级之间的相互制约关系。同时,该子系统与诉权与审判权互动的子系统协同作用,对审判权实行着有效牵制,防止了审判权的失控和滥用,从而形成了良性的审级制约机制。(3)权力制约理论。权力制约理论告诉我们,任何权力都必须受到制约,司法权同样如此,这无疑为审级制约机制的科学构建和有效运行提供了重要的理论支撑。在民事司法中,科学合理地构建民事审级制约机制,具有极其重要的意义,它既能够有效实现审级制度的功能目标,也能实现上诉审程序的功能目标。在基本理论的基础上,第二章至第六章分别对不同的审级制约机制进行论述,其中第二章是关于审级启动制约机制。在民事审级系统之内,审判资源的有限性决定了审判程序的启动不是任意的、无条件的,而是需要符合法定的条件。在民事审级制约机制之中,审级启动制约机制主要表现为对上诉审启动条件的限制。而之所以对上诉审启动的条件予以限制,其原理在于司法资源的有限性与分配正义的需要。从域外来看,典型国家和地区的民事诉讼立法基本均对第二审和第三审的启动规定了相应的限制性条件,以有效利用稀缺的司法资源。在我国,由于现行民事审级乃采两审终审制,从对第二审上诉的条件来看,严格而言,我国现行民事诉讼法并未对上诉条件作实质性限制,由此导致上诉权被滥用,原本稀缺的司法资源被无端浪费,并进而严重影响了二审法院上诉审功能的正常发挥。为此,实有必要通过相关制度设计对我国民事审判启动制约机制予以完善,其中包括规范提起上诉的要件,将上诉利益作为提起上诉的实质性条件；从上诉理由、争议金额及裁判性质等方面予以制约；对滥用上诉权的行为进行制裁等。第三章是审判模式与审判范围制约机制。在审判模式问题上,第二审上诉模式直接体现着民事诉讼第一审与上诉审的关系,而且,不同的民事第二审上诉模式体现着不同的审级制约关系,因此,审判模式制约机制也就具体体现为民事第二审上诉的模式。上诉审模式决定着上诉案件的审理范围,而对上诉案件审理范围的限制则直接体现着初审对上诉审的制约机制。从目前世界各主要国家既有的第二审上诉模式来看,主要有三种模式,即：复审主义、事后审主义和续审主义。无论是英美法系国家所采取的事后审主义,还是大陆法系国家所采取的受到相应限制的续审主义,它们在处理第一审与第二审的关系问题上,都毫无例外地将对案件的事实审理重点放在了第一审,即所谓“审级重心向下倾斜”。与上诉审模式及审级重心之选择相适应,在对上诉案件审理范围的制约方面,在英美法系国家,当事人提出上诉,只能针对在原审中已经提出过异议的事项,上诉审法院对于上诉案件的处理随之便被限定在异议的范围之内。在大陆法系国家,经过改革,很多国家也已将上诉审程序重构为错误控制与修正机制,第二审法院原则上应受第一审法院事实认定的拘束。相应地,在上诉审之新证据的提出问题上,两大法系也呈现出共同的趋势,即严格限制第二审中新证据的提出,以充分发挥一审的事实审理和裁判功能,体现一审对上诉审的制约。从我国来看,并未对上诉审模式作出明确的定位,上诉审审判范围的制约机制也不完善,从而严重弱化了一审法院的审理职能,无法发挥出一审对上诉审的制约功能。在我国相关问题的完善上,应体现审级重心向下倾斜,完善一审程序,充分发挥其在调查事实方面的职能；二审实行有限制的续审制,适当限制二审审理范围。第四章是关于审判权配置制约机制。所谓审判权配置制约机制,是指通过不同审级审判权的职能划分,突出不同审级的审判职能重点。从不同审级的审判权配置来看,尽管基于不同的历史传统,各国的具体审级结构存在着较大差异,但现代审级制度在实质上又遵循并体现着基本相同的原理,表现在：(1)不同审级实现职能分层,即上下级法院之间的关系架构是通过法律明确各自的职能配置确定的,由此划定上下级法院之间的权力界限。(2)事实审与法律审的区分,实现下级法院对上级法院的有效制约。具体到我国,我国现行的两审终审制及与之相关的不同审级权限配置并未能够有效实现不同审级权限配置的制约,既未实现不同审级之间的职能分层,也未对事实审与法律审作出区分,由此带来诸多负面效应。有鉴于此,在对我国审判权配置制约机制的完善问题上,首先,有必要借鉴现代法治国家的通行做法,构建符合我国国情的有条件的三审终审制。为了减轻第三审法院的负担,充分发挥其法律审的功能,应对其受案范围进行限制,将第三审上诉的标准确定为“有重大法律价值”或称“重大法律问题”。其次,应重新界定四级法院的功能,实现职能分层。其中,初审法院的基本审判职能应当定位为依法查明案件事实、正确适用法律、解决民事纠纷,从而就具体个案的角度维护当事人的合法权益和利益。第二审法院的基本审判职能应当确定为监督初审法院的司法审判,依法纠正裁判错误,保障个案裁判的正确性和法律适用上的统一。第三审法院的基本审判职能则应界定为解释法律,统一司法裁判,保障法律适用的统一,进而维护整个司法审判程序和法治秩序。再次,基于解决民事纷争的程序设置应与案件类型相适应的需要,应建立对特定案件的一审终审制。第五章是关于裁判范围制约机制。在民事审级中,有关裁判范围的制约机制主要体现在对上诉审裁判范围的制约上,这一制约机制主要通过禁止不利益变更原则的确立发挥作用。禁止不利益变更原则的核心在于,将上诉法院变更判决的范围严格限制在上诉请求的范围之内,从而体现当事人诉权对审判权的制约,这是处分原则在上诉审程序中的直接体现和必然要求。从域外来看,上诉禁止不利益变更原则现已发展为大陆法系国家和地区民事诉讼中一项较为成熟的理论,并在民事诉讼立法中加以体现。英美法系国家虽然大多没有该原则的立法及理论,但其诉讼制度设计与司法实践则与大陆法系的上诉禁止不利益变更原则存在相当程度的暗合。相比之下,我国现行民事诉讼立法并未明确规定禁止不利益变更原则,也未体现该原则的精神实质,配套的制度建设更是极为缺乏,从而使得我国上诉审裁判范围处于制约失控的状态。由此,有必要引入上诉禁止不利益变更原则,并同时规定其适用的若干例外。根据我国实际情况,有关上诉禁止不利益变更原则适用的例外大致应当包括以下几种情形：非讼案件的例外；公共利益的例外；诉讼要件欠缺的例外；法律审裁判的例外；裁定上诉的例外以及双方上诉的例外。在相关配套制度中,为了解决禁止不利益变更原则可能带来的滥用上诉权等问题,有必要建立附带上诉制度,对提起附带上诉的主体、附带上诉与主上诉的关系、提起附带上诉的法定期间及相关程序要求、附带上诉的法律效力等等方面作出规定。第六章是关于裁判方式制约机制。在不同审级的裁判中,基于二审在审级上的特殊性,民事二审裁判方式的设计最能反映审级制约的要求。而在二审的裁判方式制约问题上,发回重审这种裁判方式作为纠正一审判决实体和程序方面错误的监督机制,最能直接反映上诉审之裁判方式制约机制设置得科学与否。虽然各国在二审发回重审制度的规定上存在诸多不同,但共同点均在于对二审发回重审的事由加以有效的限定,且大多限定于法律问题或与法律问题紧密相关的主要事实和程序问题。而且,在二审程序中,很多国家(如美国、德国)还建立了法院与当事人之间的制约机制。除此之外,以程序理由作为发回重审的标准,且尊重当事人的程序选择权,这几乎已成为当今法治发达国家发回重审制度的共同点。从我国来看,我国发回重审的机制运行并没有实现预期的目的,相反,其却走进了二审法院推卸责任、审级虚设、行政化随意派发案件等弊端百出的误区,其根本原因即在于缺乏有效的制约机制。为了制约二审法院滥用发回重审权,有必要在立法层面对发回重审制度进行如下几个方面的改革和完善：严格限制发回重审的事由；对发回重审的次数予以限制；规范发回重审的裁判形式,并确立发回重审之裁判对二审法院及当事人的拘束力；充分发挥当事人处分权对二审法院发回重审权的制约；从程序操作上对发回重审予以制约。更多还原

【Abstract】 The system of trial grade is one of the important content of judicial system. It embodies the basic concepts of procedure system and guarantees procedure justice in civil litigation, criminal litigation and administrative proceedings. In the existing research on the system of trial grade in the academic level, they all focus on the system of trial grade on narrow sense that the adjudication of civil case can have legal validity through trial of several different levels trial courts according to legal regulation. On this question, few researchers focus on how to configure the power of different trial grade scientifically and reasonably, especially how to realize mutual restriction between different trial grades in the framework of the construction of trial grade. In fact, the science design of restriction mechanism in civil trial grade relates to directly the achievement of target of construction of trial grade and the function of appellate jurisdiction. The scientific and reasonable restriction mechanism in trial grade can realize mutual restriction between first instance and appellate jurisdiction through procedure autonomy. The relationship of restriction and its function can limit effectively judge’s arbitrary and safeguard correctness, final and unity of justice. Therefore, it has important theoretical significance and practical value to research on the problem of restriction mechanism in civil trial grade.In view of this, this article will follow the dialectical analysis, comparative analysis, theoretical analysis, analysis and empirical analysis method, and analysis the basic principle of restriction mechanism in civil trial grade, the basic theory of different restriction mechanism in civil procedure system, the comparison and common principle of restriction mechanism in different nations, the situation and perfect of restriction mechanism in civil trial grade of our country, in order to provide a unique perspective and a new idea in analyzing the problem of trial grade and appellate jurisdiction and internal control of civil judicial power of our country. The article has six chapters, as follows:As the starting point of theoretical research, the chapter I is the general theory about the restriction mechanism in civil trial grade. The restriction in civil trial grade is the two-sided mutual restriction between the superior court and the inferior court through balanced and reasonable allocation of trial judge resources and powers to different trial grade and by case adjudication according to the procedure of trial grade in civil procedure law. Through this two-sided mutual restriction mechanism, the power of higher court is supervised by the lower court at the same time higher court supervising lower court. Judging from the world, the error-correcting procedure and filtering mechanism in judicial procedure is mainly the restriction mechanism in trial grade. The restriction mechanism in civil trial grade exists not only in the trial grade, it still exists in the procedure systems related to trial grade system. From the scope, the restriction mechanism in civil trial grade exists in the whole trial process. Overall, the restriction mechanism in civil trial grade include:(1) the restriction mechanism in trial grade’s startup, which is mainly embodied in the limitation to the condition of appeal judge’s startup;(2) the restriction mechanism of trial model, which is mainly embodied on the model of second hearing; (3) the restriction mechanism of trial range, which is embodied on the limitation to the scope of hearing appeals; (4) the restriction mechanism of configuration of trial power, which is realized by function layered in different trial grade; (5) the restriction mechanism of referee range, which mainly embodies in the principle that no harm of interests resulting from appeals; (6) the restriction mechanism of adjudication way. The way that remands a lawsuit for a new trial can reflect most directly the restriction mechanism of adjudication way scientific.The theoretical basis which supports the restriction mechanism in civil trial grade includes the following aspects:(1) the theory of instance independence. The instance independence is structure order of independence of judicature and the proper meaning of trial grade system. The existence of the restriction mechanism in trial grade not only won’t hinder realization of independence of judicature and independence of trial grade, on the contrary, it is the certain requirement of independence of judicature and independence of trial grade. (2) the theory of autonomy capacity of system. If we make the theory of autonomy capacity of system into the relatively independent judicial system, we can discover that the judicial system also follows the theory of "trial autonomy" and it can solve the abuse of power through the way of internal restriction system. In the judicial system, it can form mutual restriction relationship between different levels through the definition to the allocation of power of different levels and relationship between different level courts. At the same time, this subsystem and the subsystem which between litigious right of litigation and jurisdiction affect corporately, they control jurisdiction effectively and prevent the judicial authority abusing, and thus forming good restriction system in trial grade. (3) the theory of power restriction. This theory tells us that any power, including jurisdiction, must be restricted, so it provides important theory support for scientific construction and effective operation of the restriction system in trial grade. It has very important sense to construct a scientific and reasonable restriction system in civil trial grade in civil law. It can achieve effectively both the target of trial system and appellate jurisdiction procedure.In the foundation of basic theory, the chapterⅡto the chapterⅥdiscusses respectively the different restriction mechanisms of trial grade. The chapterⅡis about the restriction mechanism of trial grade’s startup.In the system of civil trial grade, the limitation of judge resources decides that the startup of judge procedure is not arbitrarily and unconditional, but need to conform to the legal conditions. The restriction mechanism of trial grade’s startup is mainly the restriction to the condition to start appellate jurisdiction, and principle is that the limitation of judicial resources and the need of distribution justice. From the outside, the civil procedure law in typical countries and regions all stipulate restrictive conditions to start the second hearing and the third hearing in order to use the scare judicial resources effectively. In China, strictly speaking, our present civil procedure law can not limit the conditions of appeal and thus result in abusing of right of appeal, which waste seriously the scarce judicial resources and influence the function of appellate jurisdiction to realize. Therefore, it is necessary to perfect our restriction mechanism of trial grade’s startup through system designs.The chapterⅢis about the restriction mechanism of trial model and trial range. Because the model of second hearing reflects directly the relationship between first instance and second hearing of civil lawsuit, and different model of second hearing embodies different restriction relationship, therefore, the restriction mechanism of trial model is embodied in the model of second hearing. The model of second hearing determines the trial range of appeal case, and the limitation to the trial range of appeal case reflects directly the restriction mechanism from first instance to second hearing. The model of second hearing in major nations mainly has three kinds:rehearing, post hearing and revivor. Both the post hearing in Anglo-American law system countries and limited revivor in continental law system countries are take the facts of case focused on first instance in dealing with the problem of the relationship between the first and second instance. In according with the model of appeal and the gravity of trial grade, the appeal of parties is only aimed at those matters which have raised disagreement in first trial, and then the handle of appeal court is confined within the scope of the disagreement in Anglo-American law system countries. Many countries of continental law system have reformed their appeal procedure into error control and correction mechanism. Accordingly, in the new evidence of appeal trial, two law system countries all restrict new evidence’s bringing in second hearing so as to give full play to the function of first instance and embody the restrict from first instance to second hearing. Our country doesn’t make clear the model of appellate jurisdiction, and the restriction mechanism of trial range is not perfect, thus weakens severely the trial function of first-instance court and cannot play on restriction function from first instance to second hearing. In order to improve it, it should perfect the first instance procedure and give full play to its function in the investigation of facts; the second hearing implement restricted revivor and limit the trial range of second hearing.The chapter IV is about the restriction mechanism of jurisdiction configuration, it is that stress on the judge function key of different trial grade through functional partition of different trial grade. Seeing from the jurisdiction configuration of different trial grade, the trial grade structure in different countries is quite different because of their different historical tradition, however, the modern trial grade structure embodies and follows the same basic principle:(1) different trial grade is layered in function. It is that the relationship between superior court and inferior court is determined by their functional configuration through the law. (2) the trial of fact and the trial of law is distinguished so as to realize restriction from inferior court to superior court. In China, the system whereby the second instance is final and associated jurisdiction configuration of different trial grade cannot realize the restriction of jurisdiction configuration in different trial grade and bring many negative effects. In view of this, in order to improve our restriction mechanism of jurisdiction configuration, at first, it is necessary to construct conditional the system whereby the third instance is final learning from modern countries. In order to alleviate the burden of third hearing court and give full play to its function, it should take "significant legal value" or "significant legal problems" as the standards for the third hearing appeal. Secondly, it should re-define the function of four grade courts. The function of first instance court is to find case truth lawfully, applicable laws correctly and solve civil disputes so as to safeguard the lawful rights and interests of parties from concrete cases angle. The function of second instance court is to supervise the first trial court and correct mistakes. The basic function of third trial court is defined to explain laws, uniform judicial referees and safeguard legal application’s unity so as to safeguard the judicial procedure and the rule of law. Again, it should establish the system whereby the first instance in final to specific case.The chapter V is about the restriction mechanism of referee range. In civil trial grade, the restriction mechanism of referee range plays a role mainly through the principle that no harm of interests resulting from appeals. The core of this principle limits the scope of changing verdict of appeal court in the scope of appeal so as to embody the restriction from litigious right to jurisdiction. This principle has developed a mature theory of civil lawsuit and embodied in civil litigation legislations in the countries and regions of continental law system. Most countries of Anglo-American law system have not legislation and theory about this principle, but their lawsuit system design and judicial practice is confirmed this principle to a certain degree. In contrast, the civil litigation legislation of our country doesn’t provisions this principle, nor embodies the spiritual essence of this principle, and thus make our referee range of appeal control restriction. Thus, it is necessary to introduce this principle and provisions some exceptions. In related system, it is necessary to establish the system of incidental appeal and provisions its subject, relation between incidental appeal and principal appeal, statutory period, related procedures and effectiveness, etc.The chapterⅥis about the restriction mechanism of adjudication way. In adjudication of different trial grade, the design of adjudication way of the second trial can reflect the request of restriction of trial grade based on its particularity. On about the question the restriction mechanism of adjudication way, the way that remand a lawsuit for a new trial can reflect directly scientific or not of restriction mechanism of appeal trial. Although has many difference, but the common of many courtiers lies in that, they all limit the reason of remand a lawsuit for a new trial on legal problems or main facts and procedures problems related closely to legal issues. Many countries (such as the United States, Germany) have established the restriction mechanism between parties and court. In addition, the common practice of remand a lawsuit for a new trial in developed countries is that:they take procedure reason as the standard to remand and respect the right of procedure option of parties. In our country, this mechanism cannot realize its anticipate goal and result in many disadvantages, which fundamental reason lies in the lack of effective restriction mechanism. In order to restrict abusing of second court, it is necessary to restrict the reason number to remand, regulate its referee forms, establish the binding force of this referee to second court and parties, play a role the restriction from the right of disposing of litigant to the power of second court, restrict remand from procedure operation.更多还原