德国民事法定听审请求权研究

【作者】 蓝冰；

【导师】 田平安；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 民事诉讼法学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 本文首次对德国民事诉讼法具体制度展开研究。德国民事法定听审请求权关涉诉讼过程中当事人的人性尊严保障,体现法治国家原则,是民事诉讼法和民事诉讼的核心理念。德国民事法定听审请求权是当事人在民事诉讼中享有的一项程序基本权利,也是宪法上的人权保障观在民事诉讼中的体现,旨在保障当事人的诉讼主体地位。本文对德国民事法定听审请求权展开了全景式、体系化研究,涵盖了德国民事法定听审请求权的意涵、历史、理论基础、主体、内容、限制和救济,探求法定听审请求权作为一项程序基本权利和人权保障理念对民事诉讼相关制度供给的指导意义和核心作用。反思我国立法实践与民事诉讼制度设计,基于我国人权保障的宪法基础、程序权保障的诉讼理论和司法和谐的法政策,针对我国宪法和民事诉讼法立法缺陷、民事司法实践的需要以及民事诉讼制度亟待完善的现实,本文提出了在宪法和民事诉讼法上确认法定听审请求权保障的理念、在民事诉讼各项具体制度中完善法定听审请求权的构想,以期对我国民事诉讼法改革和民事诉讼法理论的完善有所裨益。本文分为三部分,计15万字。第一部分是德国民事法定听审请求权的历史与理论基础。本部分旨在分析法定听审请求权这一术语在德国法上的含义、一般性质以及与其他国家规定的差异,探求法定听审请求权在德国的生长历程和成长环境及其理论支撑。这是本文研究的起点。第一章说明,“法定听审请求权”一词译自德文。笔者在译文上忠实于该权利的实质含义,即,当事人基于宪法所赋予的程序主体地位,有权请求法院在作出判决时,保障当事人能够参与该审判程序、享有充分的攻击防御、陈述事实和法律上的意见和辩论的机会,从而影响裁判程序的进行和结果。法定听审请求权既是一项宪法规定的程序基本权利,也是一项复合性诉讼权利,同时是一项民事诉讼基本原则,因此,“法定听审请求权”通常可以与“法定听审”互用。同时,德国法定听审请求权的历史演变也表明,法定听审请求权是自然正义和宪政发展的成果,具有宪法实定法化的历程。本章旨在说明法定听审请求权的来源与其所具有的程序基本权和复合性诉讼权利的性质。第二章阐述了法定听审请求权所依据的法治国理论和人权保障的理论基础,说明法定听审请求权是宪法发展的产物,宪法是法定听审请求权所具有的保障当事人在诉讼中的主体地位的依据,而法定听审请求权是宪法确认的人权保障观在民事诉讼中的体现。本章旨在阐明法定听审请求权的法治国家原则性和人权保障观。第二部分是对法定听审请求权的体系化研究,旨在考察以法定听审请求权保障为理念的民事诉讼制度。第三章分别在宪法和民事诉讼法层面对德国民事法定听审请求权主体进行了梳理。宪法上的法定听审请求权人的范围大于民事诉讼法。在宪法上,人人都享有法定听审请求权;在民事诉讼法上,法定听审请求权的主体是具有特定性,包括当事人或者类似当事人地位而参与法院诉讼程序的人,或者直接与诉讼存在法律上的利害关系的人。本章旨在对法定听审请求权主体在宪法和民事诉讼法层面加以区分,认为前者具有概括性,后者具有特定性。第四章涉及法定听审请求权的内容,包括知悉权、陈述权、审酌请求权和突袭性裁判禁止请求权。法定听审请求权不仅是当事人享有的复合性诉讼权利,同时也要求法官履行审酌义务和提示义务,禁止突袭性裁判,实现当事人的程序主体地位保障。而这种保障还涉及到与民事诉讼相关的制度,例如律师代理制度。法定听审请求权三个方面的内容与民事诉讼具体制度相关,一是受到送达制度保障的知悉权,二是集中体现当事人程序主体地位的陈述权,三是受法官心证公开制度保障的审酌请求权,其中还包括了受到释明义务和法律讨论义务保障的突袭性裁判禁止请求权。这是本文的重点部分。第五章论及法定听审请求权在民事诉讼法上受到失权制度的合法限制。由于法定听审请求权具有宪法基本权利的特殊地位,它不应当受到非法限制。只有在法院错误适用失权规定时,才会侵害法定听审请求权。第六章研究了法定听审请求权的救济程序。法定听审请求权的救济因法定听审请求权的双重属性而具有特殊性,即双轨式救济。作为宪法基本权利,它可以通过宪法诉讼得以救济;作为一项复合性诉讼权利,也可以得到民事法院的救济。其救济方式包括宪法抗告和向普通民事法院提出上诉和听审责问。2001年和2004年《德国民事诉讼法》改革就新增了听审责问救济程序,强化对法定听审请求权的救济。第三部分将视角转向反思我国民事法定听审请求权实践。促进民事诉讼的人权保障理念,并改进相关诉讼制度,是本文研究的落脚点。第七章转而分析我国法定听审请求权立法缺失和原因。我国古代儒家传统文化、家族主义的家长制否定了个人,在立法上体现为义务本位主义,在诉讼中个人被义务性法律束缚,没有程序主体地位,对裁判的形成不能发挥积极的影响作用。因此,尽管我国古代实行“两造听讼”的审判制度,但是,它与保障人权和当事人程序主体地位的法定听审请求权制度实质不同。我国现行《宪法》和《民事诉讼法》没有明确规定法定听审请求权,是囿于权利意识淡薄、传统的国家主义立法观的主导以及对法定听审请求权立法的理论准备不充分。第八章论证了我国确立法定听审请求权的必要性和可行性。这解决我国确立法定听审请求权的正当性问题。我国《宪法》和《民事诉讼法》确立法定听审请求权是法定听审请求权得以有效保障的前提。一方面,法定听审请求权的宪法化是宪法完善、人权保障、宣誓和保障法定听审求权和确认民事诉讼法的宪法理念的需要。法定听审请求权只有在宪法上被确认为公民的一项基本权利,才能成为我国民事诉讼制度设计的宪法理念,也才能称之为法定听审请求权的宪法保障;法定听审请求权的民事诉讼法化不仅可以使民事诉讼法的宪法理念具体化、法定听审请求权作为人权保障理念的原则化,而且还可以使法定听审请求权保障的体系化及其民事救济程序的法定化。法定听审请求权只有在民事诉讼法规定其基本原则性和救济方式后,才能成为贯穿我国民事诉讼法制度和民事诉讼的主线,才能得到切实的法律保障;另一方面,也是优化诉讼程序、防止涉诉上访、树立司法权威并且减轻最高法院负担的根本之举。目前,人权保障已纳入宪法,实务中已经开始践行诸如告知制度之类的保障当事人法定听审请求权的措施,“司法和谐”已成为诉讼追求的目标,法定听审请求权纳入宪法和民事诉讼法体系和理论体系都不存在障碍,这些都表明,确立法定听审请求权已具备初步条件。第九章从理论上提出了我国法定听审请求权立法宏观构想,并对相关民事诉讼制度进行检讨与改进。这涉及法定听审请求权对我国相关民事诉讼制度的整合,并从当事人的保障(二和五)、对法官的约束(四和六)和救济程序三个层次,对我国法定听审请求权相关制度进行检讨并提出改进建议。一提出了法定听审请求权宪法化的宏观构想。宪法明确规定法定听审请求权,并由最高人民法院设置专门法庭对司法实践中侵害法定听审请求权的行为予以追究。二提出了法定听审请求权民事诉讼法化的宏观构想。由于法定听审原则是一项以保障法定听审请求权为核心的宪法性原则,其效力高于普通民事诉讼法原则,因此,民事诉讼法理当明确把它确定为民事诉讼法的一项基本原则。本章说明,法定听审请求权实定法化是法定听审请求权保障作为诉讼中人权保障理念得以正当化的前提,因此,它首先应当得到我国《宪法》确认,然后在我国《民事诉讼法》上确立为基本原则。三检讨送达制度。现有送达方式存在诸多缺陷,推定送达制度不够完善,对此,应当通过保障有效送达、完善推定送达制度和构建层级送达体制予以改进,从而确保当事人的知悉权,为行使法定听审请求权所涵盖的其他权利提供基础;四是从法定听审请求权防止突袭性裁判的角度,检讨释明义务。释明范围缺乏层次和法律观点提示义务认识不清的问题,应当以法定听审请求权保障为目标,完善法律观点提示义务,例如,法官应当在特定情形下履行法律观点提示义务并记入笔录,以备审查;法官不当履行或者不履行释明提示义务而做出的裁判,可以因法官侵害法定听审请求权被提起上诉、责问或宪法抗告而获得救济。五是证据失权制度存在正当性理论基础单一、证据失权规则缺陷和相关配套制度不健全的问题,应当把诉讼负担论和法定听审请求权保障及其合宪性限制作为证据失权制度的正当性基础的补充,改进其具体制度,健全答辩失权和证据交换配套制度。细言之,我国在设计该制度时,应当以法定听审请求权的最低限制为根据,严格限制证据失权制度的适用。为此,证据制度应当进行如下改革:首先,应当有条件的放宽举证期限,以当事人在举证期限届满之前提供证据为一般原则,同时,在一审言词辩论终结前,根据查明案件真实的需要,当事人有权及时提供证据:其次,规定严格的证据失权要件,即,法官实施了审前准备,为当事人提交证据提供了足够的机会和时间;允许当事人逾期举证将导致诉讼延迟;当事人逾期举证有重大过失或者恶意。当事人逾期举证时,法院应当赋予该当事人就无过失逾期进行疏明的机会。只有在法官认为当事人逾期举证存在重大过失,而且逾期举证会导致延迟诉讼时,才能适用证据失权;再次,应当重新界定新证据的含义。一审中的新证据应当包括:一审最后言辞辩论终结时未提出、被放弃、被法院正确地排除的证据;在一审言辞辩论终结后才发生的事实;一审中当事人的主张无实质性争议,而在第二审时,对补正该争议的实质性时所提供的证据。二审允许提供的新证据包括:一审法院明显忽略或者认为不重要的观点:因一审程序缺陷而没有主张的证据;非因当事人的过失而没有在一审中提出的证据。最后,确立被告答辩失权制度和完善庭前证据交换制度相关配套制度。六是心证公开是对法官履行审酌义务的要求。尤其是裁判理由的公开是法定听审请求权是否得到保障的重要标志。心证公开制度立法粗疏,在实践中有较大的随意性,其理论视角偏狭,应当转换研究视角,以保障法定听审请求权的理念完善具体制度。七对我国2007年修订后的《民事诉讼法》关于当事人申请再审所涉及的法定听审请求权保护进行检视。该项规定仍然具有程序工具论之嫌,应当以保障当事人法定听审请求权为再审制度设计理念,把“法官违背释明义务”和“不当限制当事人提出新的攻击防御方法”添加到当事人申请再审的事由中,缩短再审申请期限,要求案件只有在经过上诉审后才能提出再审申请,并且只允许申请一次再审。综上所述,本文有以下几个方面的创新内容:(一)视角新本文研究法定听审请求权及其保障,目的在于为我国民事诉讼相关制度的整合寻求一个基本立足点。法定听审请求权不仅是一项复合性诉讼权利,而且由于它具有宪法的最高地位,它实际上起到了贯穿于民事诉讼各项制度的基本原则的作用。因此,本文对法定听审请求权的系统化研究对我国民事诉讼法相关制度的改革和完善有所裨益。法定听审请求权所包含的诉讼告知权、意见陈述权、法官的审酌请求权等内容,在我国分别都得到了较为细致的研究。但是,这些研究缺乏整体性、体系化和一种程序理念以及宪法高度,加之缺乏对法定听审请求权所具有的基本原则性的认识,在具体的权利设置和制度安排上顾此失彼,不能相互呼应,甚至脱节。典型的例子就是我国关于证据失权制度如何宽严相济的争议。(二)观点新第一,法定听审请求权仅仅指诉讼系属到裁判作出这一阶段所实施的请求权,不包含司法裁判请求权,即开启诉讼的权利,进而可以把判决程序一分为二,明确法定听审请求权和司法裁判请求权的界限和研究范围,前者研究程序权的保障,而后者研究受案范围。第二,法定听审请求权的研究体系化。这包括法定听审请求权的历史发展、理论基础、功能结构和救济方式。我国学界虽然对法定听审请求权涉及的内容分别进行了或多或少的研究,例如提供证据权等,但是,并未认识到这些权利所具有的整体性特征,因而其体系化研究阙如。第三,法定听审请求权体现了人权保障观,是一种程序理念,具有贯穿整个民事诉讼法和民事诉讼的原则性功能。我国学界通常从程序保障的角度研究当事人的诉讼权利,也从宪法与民事诉讼法的关系角度讨论程序保障,但是并没有从二者相结合的角度出发,对法定听审请求权进行系统而具体化考察,换言之,学界并没有从法定听审请求权贯穿整个民事诉讼程序和所有民事诉讼制度,并落实到具体权利保护的角度开展研究。第四,法定听审请求权作为一项具有宪法地位的程序基本权利,应当在我国实定法化,纳入宪法和民事诉讼法规范:宪法宣示法定听审请求权保障,民事诉讼法明确规定以法定听审请求权保障为核心的法定听审原则。(三)资料新第一,本文能采用大量的德文原文资料,得益于本人在多年前获得德语语言文学学士学位后,长期参与德中文化交流事务,并有幸在2004年赴德学习。其时虽短,但为本论题收集了大量的一手资料。第二、与德国法专家直接对话。德国法定听审请求权涉及诉讼中的法治国家原则和当事人的人权保障。如何防止该权利在民事诉讼中遭到侵害,成为德国法上一个极其重要的问题,理论界和实务界都非常关注。由于两国交流不畅,德国法学教授们对中国类似法律制度研究颇感兴趣,对本论题的选择也十分兴奋和期待,并提供了有益见解和资料支持。第三,及时关注资料更新。各国宪法虽然都关涉法定听审请求权的内容,但唯有《德国民事诉讼法》明确规定了对法定听审请求权全面的民事救济程序,并不断完善对法定听审请求权的保护,因此,德国法定听审请求权的这一独特性具有重要研究价值。为了尽可能准确地把握法定听审请求权的立法动态,本文特别关注2001年德国民事诉讼法改革的相关内容,以及规定在本审级内部对法定听审请求权侵害实施救济的新方式的《听审责问法》(2005年生效),以期掌握德国法定听审请求权的整体运作,从而对我国法定听审请求权保障的理论研究与立法有所助益。更多还原

【Abstract】 Research to German concrete system of the civil procedures is conducted in this paper for the first time in China. The German civil right to be heard before the court involves the guarantee of human rights, it embodies the principle of the rule of law and is the core principle of the Civil Procedure Law and the civil proceedings. The right to be heard before the court is a procedural enjoy basic rights which the parties own in civil proceeding, and is also as the human rights protection of the Constitution embodied in the civil proceedings. The purpose is to protect the main status of the parties to the proceedings. In this article, the right to be heard launched a panoramic view and the structure of the study, covering the meanings, histories, theoretical basis, body, content, restrictions and relief of the right to be heard, to explore the Germany civil statutory as a fundamental right procedural rights and the protection of human rights concepts to the guidance supplied by the civil related litigation and the central role it plays. Based on our constitutional foundation for the protection of human rights, procedures for the protection of the right to legal theory and judicial proceedings of a harmonious law policy, in view of the Constitution and the shortcomings of the Civil Procedure Law legislative, the civil judicial practice as well as the civil litigation system needing to be perfect reality, it proposes to confirm the idea of statutory right to be heard before the court in the Constitution and the Code of Civil Procedure legislative, and to perfect the conception of statutory right to be heard in all specific system in civil proceeding, with a view to give the benefit to China’s civil law’s reformation and the perfect of the Code of Civil Procedure. In addition to this introduction, this article is divided into three parts, including 190,000 words.The first part is the "historical and theoretical basis of German right to be heard before the court." This part provides an analysis the meaning, the positioning system, features, as well as the difference with other countries provided on the term of the right to be heard before the court in German law, to seek the right to be heard before the court in the German history of the growth and development of the environment and its theoretical base.ChapterⅠfirst clears that "the right to be heard before the court " is translated from German. The author asked the faithful to the real meaning of the rights, that is to say, the parties who base on the main procedures status of the Constitution are entitled to request the court to make decisions to protect the parties to participate in the trial process, enjoy full right of attack and defense, state the truth and legal advice and the opportunity to debate, so that it can affect the conducting and results of the magistrate procedures. The right to be heard before the court is not only a constitutional right to the basic procedural rights but also a basic principle of civil, therefore, the right to be heard before the court can usually be interoperable with the statutory hearing. In the meantime, the historical evolution of the right to be heard before the court also indicates that this right is the outcome of the natural justice and constitutional development, with the course of the titration of Constitution.ChapterⅡexpounds the right to be heard before the court is on the basis of the rule of law theory and the theoretical basis for the protection of human rights, illustrating that the right to be heard before the court is the product of the constitution. The constitution is the basis of protecting the parties’ dominant position in the proceedings which is owned by the right to be heard before the court, and this right is the reflection of the concept of the protection of human rights, which is confirmed by the constitution in the civil proceedings.The second part is the systematic inspection to the right to be heard before the court.ChapterⅢsorts out the body of the German right to be heard before the court respectively in the Constitution and the Civil Procedure Law level. The scope of the people owning the right to be heard before the court in the Constitution is greater than the Code of Civil Procedure. In the Constitution, everyone is entitled to statutory right to request the hearing; in the Code of Civil Procedure, the body of the right to be heard before the court has the specificity, including the parties or the people with the status of the similar parties involved in court proceedings, or the people who has the stakes with the legal proceedings directly.ChapterⅣdeals with the content of the right to be heard before the court, including the right to know, right to be heard, the discretionary right to request trial and the raid of the right to request a magistrate prohibited. The right to be heard before the court not only gives the parties the litigation rights but also lessons the judges the trial discretion obligations and the tips obligation, prohibiting the attacks of referees and achieving the body protection of procedures of the parties. And this protection also relates to the civil litigation system, such as lawyers system.ChapterⅤaddresses the right to be heard before the court is restricted legitimately by the proof-losing right system in the civil law. As the right to be heard before the court has the special status of the basic constitutional rights, it should not be restricted illegally. Only when the court applies the lost right provisions wrongly can it encroach on the right to be heard before the court.ChapterⅥresearches the relief procedures of the right to be heard before the court. The relief has the specificity due to the dual attributes of the right to be heard before the court -- dual-relief. As a basic constitutional right, it may get the relief by constitutional litigation; as a procedural right, it may get the relief by the civil court. Its way of relief includes the constitutional complaint, appealing to the ordinary civil Court and Hearing inquiries. The reformation of German Civil Procedure Law in 2001 and 2004 adds up the Hearing inquiries relief process, to strengthen the relief of the right to be heard before the court.The third part shifts the perspective on the reflection of China’s civil right to be heard before the court.ChapterⅦturns to analyze the legislative losses and causes of China’s civil right to be heard before the court. China’s ancient culture of the Confucian tradition, the patriarchal system of familism indelible the individuals, embodied in the legislation as the obligations for selfishness. In the proceedings the individuals are fettered by the legal obligations, have no procedures dominant position and can not play a positive impact on the formation of the magistrate. Thus, despite Ancient China implements the trial system of "hearing both sides of First Instance", it is different from the right to be heard system which promotes human dignity and protects the procedures dominant positions of the parties. China’s current Constitution and Civil Procedure Law does not define any right to be heard clearly. This is due to the weak awareness of rights, the predominating the traditional concept of national legislation as well as not fully prepared to the statutory right to request legislation theory.ChapterⅧdemonstrates the necessity and feasibility to establish the right to be heard before the court in China. China’s Constitution and Civil Procedure Law establishes that the right to be heard is the premise of the effective protection of that right. On the one hand, the right to be heard of the constitution is the need to perfect constitution, protect the human rights and protect the right to be heard as well as confirm the constitutional concept of the Code of Civil Procedure Law. Only the right to be heard is confirmed as a fundamental right of citizens can it design the constitutional concept of becoming China’s civil litigation system, as well as be call the constitutional guarantees of the right to be heard; the Code of Civil Procedure of the right to be heard not only can make the constitutional concept of the Code of Civil Procedure specific, the principle of the right to be heard as the concept of the protection of human rights, but also protect the right to be heard system and its civil relief of the statutory procedures. Only after the Code of Civil Procedure provides the basic principles and methods of relief of the right to be heard in the civil law provides can it become the mainline of China’s Civil Procedure Law system through civil proceedings and be effective legal protection; on the other hand, it is also the fundamental move to optimize proceedings, establish the authority of the judiciary and reduce the burden on the Supreme Court At present, the protection of human rights have been incorporated into the Constitution, "Justice Harmony" has been a goal pursued by litigation. In practice it has already begun practicing the system such as the protection of the right to be heard before the court of the parties. These suggest that establishing the right to be heard before the court already has preliminary conditions.ChapterⅨputs forward our legislative macro concept and thorough the system level of the construction of the right to be heard before the court of China, viewing the right to be heard before the court as the concept, from the three levels of the protection of the parties (ⅡandⅤ), the binding of judges (ⅣandⅥ) and the relief procedures, requesting hearings on China’s legal system relating to the right to review and make recommendations for improvement.This first provides one of the two macro-designs: in the aspect of the titration of the right to be heard before the court, the Constitution provides a right to be heard before the court expressly, and the Supreme People’s Court set up special courts in the judicial practice against the right to be heard acts to be investigated;The second is the other one of the two macro-designs: in the aspect of the Code of Civil Procedure of the right to be heard before the court, as the principle of the right to be heard is a constitutional principle that protect the right to be heard before the court as the core, of which the effect is higher than the general principles of civil law, therefore, the Code of Civil Procedure should identify it clearly as one of the basic principles and provide its relief procedures.The third is the service system. There are many deficiencies existing in mode of service, especially the presumption service system is not perfect enough. In this regard, it should be improved by protecting effective service, improving the service system of the presumption and building the level service system, to ensure that the parties’ awareness right of the procedures, for the exercise of the statutory right to request the hearing covered by other rights provide the basis.The forth is to review the obligations to address from the perspective of raid of a magistrate of the right to be heard before the court. The obligations to address has the problems such as the value of objective evaluation of low-level, address scope in the lack of levels and the unawareness of the tips obligation to legal point of view. It should regard the right to be heard before the court as the value objective of the obligations to address, perfecting the tips obligation to legal point of view, for example, the judges should perform the obligations to address and credit to the transcripts in the specific circumstances, to "prepare to review; the judges should not perform the obligations to address or not to make the magistrates, but can be appeal filed, inquiry or the constitution Kokoku to receive relief because of the judges against the right to be heard before the court.The fifth is that the proof-losing right system has the problems of single legitimacy theoretical foundation, the rules of proof-losing defects and the related system being not sound. It should regard the burden of litigation theory and the protection of the right to be heard before the court as well as its constitutional restrictions as the supplements of the legitimacy foundation of the evidence missing right system, to improve its specific systems and sound the loss right of reply with the evidence exchange matching system. Fine words, in the design of the system, China should limit the application of the proof-losing right system according to the minimum limit of the right to be heard. To this end, the evidence system reformation should be carried out as follows: first, it should relax the burden of proof for condition, regard the parties to provide evidence before the expiration of the period as the general principle, at the same time, in the first instance before the end of the debate on language, according to the real needs of identified cases, the parties have the right to provide evidence in time; second, to regular the essential elements of the evidence missing right strictly, namely, the judges implement the pre-trial preparation, to provide the sufficient opportunity and time for the parties to submit evidence; to allow the parties give the proof overdue will lead the litigation to delay; the parties giving the proof overdue have significant fault or malicious. When the parties give the proof overdue, the court should give the parties on the no-fault overdue for dredging that opportunity. Only the judges think that there are major fault of the parties giving the proof overdue and giving the proof overdue will lead the litigation to delay can it apply the evidence missing right; again, it should redefine the meaning of the new evidence. In the first trial the new evidence should include: the evidence that isn’t proposed, is abandoned and excluded by the court correctly at the last words debate in the end of the first instance; the facts happen after the last words debate in the end of the first trial; in the first trial that the parties have no substantive disputes, but in second instance, to provide the evidence to the dispute on the substantive corrections. The second trial allowing the new evidence including: the views that the court of First Instance obviously overlooked or the view that is not important; the evidence that did not advocate because of procedural shortcomings in the first trial; the evidence that wasn’t put forward in the first trial not because of the parties’ fault. Last, to establish the defendant lost right system and to perfect the system of pre-trial evidence-exchange system related supporting systems.The sixth is that the open heart permission is the requirements to perform the trial discretion obligations to the judges. Especially magistrate reason for the public is the important symbol .whether the right to be heard is protected or not. The legislation of the open heart permission system is slipshod and has a greater randomness in practice. Its theoretical perspective is narrow. Its Perspective should be converted, in order to protect the concept of the right to be heard before the court to perfect the specific systems.The seventh is review of the protection of the right to be heard before the court concerning the application system of the party to a lawsuit in the 2007 revised Civil Procedure Law of China. The regulation still has the suspicion of procedure tool theory, and should guarantee the parties’ right to be heard before the court as the design principle for application system of retrial, adding the "judge’s violation of this interpretation obligation" and" improper restriction of the parties’ right to put forward new attacking and defending methods to the retrial reason, reducing the period of an application for retrial, approving the application once for retrial only when the case in appeal instance.更多还原