民事审级制度研究

【作者】 孔祥宪；

【导师】 韩秀桃；

【作者基本信息】 安徽大学 ， 法律， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 民事审级制度是指法律规定的审判机关在组织体系上设置的等级以及一个案件经过多少级法院审判后裁判才发生法律效力的一种诉讼法律制度。设立民事审级制度的目的在于为了寻求法院裁判的公平和正义，从而实现法律的公平与正义，同时在诉讼公正与效率两者之间找到一个平衡点，达到合理程度，使其既能最大限度地维护公正，又能尽可能地达到高效率。我国的民事审级制度经历了历史的发展进程，从解放冶的四级三审终审制过渡到现在的四级两审终审制。如果以历史的态度和对中国国情务实的态度来看，应该说四级两审终审制在历史上确实发挥了重要的作用。然而随着我国社会主义市场经济的确立和发展，社会结构面临着重新的分化组合，新的利益群体不断生成，我国国情正在发生着重大变化，人民的法律意识特别是维权意识的不断增加，案件类型也呈多样化趋势，出现了几元钱甚至是几角钱的案件。案件的复杂程度也增加了，特别是适用法律的难度增加。更为重要的是大量终审裁判不断地涌向再审这个特殊的救济渠道，再审程序不断膨胀，但效果不佳，出现了终审不终的现象。这使得审级制度的价值荡然无存， 由于我国两审终审的民事审级制度在构建之初就欠缺审级制度功能原理方面的考虑，伴随着国情的变迁，民事审级制度在理论上的不和谐、制度结构上的失衡等问题便凸显出来，并因此造成了司法实践中的种种弊端：1、各审级功能混淆：现代审级制度为三审终审的金字塔型司法等级制，且三审法院(初审法院、上诉法院、终审法院)分别行使不同的职能。我国法院系统的四级法院都履行着初审法院的职能，本应作为普通案件初审法院的中级法院便成了普通案件的上诉法院和终审法院，代行了本应由高级法院和最高法院行使的职权。2、四级两审终审制难以克服地方保护主义、难以保障案件的质量：中级法院、基层法院在同一行政辖区，难免存在业务上、人事上的亲密联系，不能有效纠正基层法院裁判的错误。法院的设置和行政区划的设置是一致的，人、财、物有赖于政府的解决，这为地方保护主义提供了温床。目前具体承担民事审判业务的主要是基层和中级法院，较低级别法院的审判人员的业务水平、办案能力和对法律的理解与运用难免有一定的局限性。3、从民事诉讼的审理对象来看四级两审终审制的内在机理紊乱：目前的第二审既是事实审有是法律审。中级法院是大多数案件的终审法院，导致了最高法院在全国范围内统一法律见解的功能无从发挥。4、两审终审制的外部救济机制不协调一一‘再审的无限扩张:我国再审程序“实事求是、有错必纠”的指导思想严重违反了民事诉讼的司法规律.审判监督程序的频繁发动，严重损坏了人民法院裁判的权威性，挫伤T人民对司法的信仰.5、人民法院的内请工作制度有违审判独立:“法官之上无法官”，定案前先行请示有违审判独立的原则，不利于提高审判人员的业务素质，不利于保护当事人的诉权.所有这一切使得审级制度的价值荡然无存。 现代世界两大法系国家的民事审级制度虽然有一定的差距，但在实质上体现着相同的原理或相似的功能配置方式:1、均为三审终审的金字塔型的审判结构且三审法院分别由初审法院、一上诉法院、终审法院组成，各自承担着不同的制度功能;2、普遮实行三审终审的审级制度;3、第三审为法律审、书面审、事后审;4、提起第三审上诉有严格的限制，普遍确立了减少第三审审级的一些具体制度. 我国应在审级制度原理的指导下，在借鉴世界两大法系国家审级制度的有益经验的基础上，结合我国的国情，可根据以下思路完善我国的民事审级制度:1、重新设置各级法院的审级功能:将基层法院定位为简易法院，作为简易、小额案件的第一审法院，其上一级法院为中级法院;中级法院定位为普通法院，作为普通民事案件的初审法院，高级法院作为第二审、最高法院作为第三审(终审法院);取消高级法院、最高法院的初审管辖权，将其定位为上诉审法院.2、针对不同的案件实行多元化的审级制度:普通案件实行有条件的三审终审，第三审为法律审、书面审.法律审的设置目的为统一全国范围内的法律适用、纠正二审法院的错误裁判.第三审程序审理案件的范围包括有原则意义、诉讼标的较大涉及社会会益、集团诉讼等.为减少人民法院的司法成本和当事人诉讼成本，尊重当事人的意志，允许当事人越级上诉、达成不提起上诉的协议.简易小额案件实行两审终审制.3、弱化再审程序，严格限制再审程序的发动:废除人民法院依职权发动再审的程序;限制人民检察院杭诉的案件范围，对于涉及公共利益的民事案件检察院有杭诉的权力;建立再审之诉，对当事人的再审之诉从期限、理由、次数等方面进行限制.更多还原

【Abstract】 The tiered judicial system of civil case refers to a legal suit system about the hierarchy of judicial organizations and the procedure of an effective verdict. Establishing the system is to pursue the equal and just verdict so as to realize the equality and justice of law and to find a balance between justice and efficiency so as to realize them to the full extension. The tiered system of our country experienced a transition from the old "4-tier courts and 3-trial final verdict " system to the present "4-tier courts and 2-trial final verdict" system. From the historical and factual point of view, the present system has played an important role before. However, with the development of the socialist market economy system, the social structure of our country is constantly changing and the new interest groups are growing. The situation in china is changing and people’s legal awareness, especially their rights-protection awareness is increasing. The civil cases are becoming much more various. The cases about little money even took place. The complicity of cases and the difficulty for applicable clauses are increasing. What is more, many final verdicts have faced retries as special solutions. Repetitions retries bring no good effect and the final try does not mean the end of a case, which ruin the value of the present "4-tier courts and 2-trial final verdict" system.The present system, with its original demerit of no full consideration of the function of the tiered system and with the changes in our country, is exposing many problems in its theoretical base and structure and resulting much malady of legal practices. These include:1. The functions of different tiers of counts are mixed. The modern popular tiered judicial system of civil case applies pyramidal 3-trial final verdict. The 3-trial courts (first trial court, appeal court, and final verdict court) perform different functions. However, 4 tiers of courts in our country can perform the fires-trial function .The intermediate court, which should have been the fires-trial court of common cases, has become the appeal court and final verdict court and thus has arrogated tights of the high levelcourt and the highest court.2. Local protectionism is difficult to be solved and the quality of judiciary is low. The intermediate court and the low level court are in the same administrational prefecture, so there exist close connections between their judicial businesses, judges and other aspects. These prevent correcting the verdict of the low level court effectively. The setting of courts is compatible with that of governments, by governments. This leads to local protectionism. The judges in the intermediate court and the low level court are weak in their theory and practice.3. From the angle of the object of examination , the operation of the present system is in disorder. The objects of the examination of the second trial court cover both facts and application of law clauses. The intermediate court functions as the final verdict court, which leads to the malady of the function of the highest court to unify the national understanding of law clauses.4. Retry takes place again and again. The principle of retry "respect facts and correct any mistakes" is seriously against the civil suit law. Repetitious retries damage the authority of legal verdict and affects people’s belief in judiciary.5. Asking for the high level courts’ or the leader’s opinion before accepting a case is an internal rule in courts . This rule violates independence of judiciary, affects the improvement of the quality of judges and damages suitors’ rights.All the demerits seriously disvalue the present system.Though the tiered judicial systems of civil case of the world-wide legal systems are different, they share similar principles and distributional methods of functions.1 . Both of them apply the trial structure of 3-trial verdict. The 3 tries are performed by first trial court, appeal court, and final trial court and the courts take different functions.2. 3-trial final更多还原