本文選題：有限三審 + 兩審終審��； 參考：《遼寧大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：由于目前我國(guó)現(xiàn)行的審級(jí)制度的基礎(chǔ)是兩審終審制,對(duì)民事有限三審終審制還沒(méi)有一個(gè)具體的定義,國(guó)外實(shí)行三審終審制已經(jīng)相當(dāng)成熟,通過(guò)研究域外審級(jí)制度,可以把民事訴訟有限三審終審制定義為不服第二審法院所作出的判決的當(dāng)事人期待權(quán)威性的判決就法律問(wèn)題提起的第二次上訴,在上訴審法院經(jīng)過(guò)閱卷,初步審查上訴案件以后,認(rèn)為該案件不是只關(guān)乎當(dāng)事人的私人利益,而是涉及重要的法律適用問(wèn)題,抑或是經(jīng)過(guò)審判后能具有普遍的指導(dǎo)性意義的案件,在這個(gè)條件下受理當(dāng)事人的上訴,經(jīng)過(guò)組成專(zhuān)業(yè)合議庭書(shū)面審理上訴案件的一個(gè)審級(jí)制度。與兩審終審制的全面審查原則不同,在有限三審終審制度下,第三審法院只就上訴案件判決所適用的法律是否具有正當(dāng)性合法性進(jìn)行重點(diǎn)審查,二次上訴案件的事實(shí)問(wèn)題部分則不在第三審法院審查的范圍之內(nèi)。能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)法律問(wèn)題和事實(shí)問(wèn)題在第三審層面上的分離是因?yàn)榈谌龑徱粋�(gè)顯著特征就是注重普遍案件的法律適用統(tǒng)一而非實(shí)現(xiàn)個(gè)案公正。這樣做的目的能夠讓第三審即終審法院的法官把有限的精力放在對(duì)法律問(wèn)題的思考上,從而讓第三審法官在法律問(wèn)題而非案件事實(shí)的司法判斷上更有了客觀、堅(jiān)實(shí)的基礎(chǔ)。之所以要建立有限三審終審制度,是現(xiàn)行審級(jí)制度已經(jīng)不能滿(mǎn)足案件類(lèi)型多元化趨勢(shì),更不能確保法律適用的統(tǒng)一和生效裁判的權(quán)威性。能夠進(jìn)入到第三審的案件數(shù)量很少,因?yàn)榈谌龑彽纳显V條件較為嚴(yán)格,法律審的性質(zhì)定位使得能夠進(jìn)入到三審法院的案件只能是具有普遍指導(dǎo)性意義的法律問(wèn)題案件。法學(xué)理論界已經(jīng)對(duì)這一程序制度研究多年,也形成了不少具有價(jià)值型的研究成果。法律實(shí)務(wù)界在辦案過(guò)程中也積累了大量的有益經(jīng)驗(yàn),對(duì)我國(guó)的民事訴訟審級(jí)制度改革呼聲日益高漲,這為有限三審終審制度在我國(guó)的建立提供了堅(jiān)實(shí)的理論和實(shí)踐基礎(chǔ)。關(guān)于如何構(gòu)建我國(guó)的有限三審終審制度,筆者結(jié)合理論與實(shí)踐,主要從案件類(lèi)型即標(biāo)的額和上訴理由是法律問(wèn)題還是事實(shí)問(wèn)題,是個(gè)案抑或具有普遍性的案件和上訴提請(qǐng)主體、引起方式和決定程序,審查和審理方式以及法院職能的重構(gòu)等方面進(jìn)行詳細(xì)論述。有限三審制終審制度的建立并不是廢除兩審終審制,而是在以現(xiàn)行審級(jí)制度的基礎(chǔ)上有條件的實(shí)行三審制度,實(shí)質(zhì)上是審級(jí)的多元化。
[Abstract]:Because the current trial grade system in our country is based on the two-instance final appeal system, and there is no specific definition of the civil limited third instance final appeal system, the implementation of the third instance final appeal system in foreign countries is already quite mature. Through the study of the extraterritorial trial grade system, We can define the limited third instance system of civil action as the second appeal of an authoritative judgment filed by a party who does not accept a judgment made by the court of second instance, and has been reviewed by the appellate court. After a preliminary examination of the appeal case, it was concluded that the case was not only concerned with the private interests of the parties, but involved important questions of the application of the law, or a case of general guiding significance after trial, Under this condition, the appeal of the parties is accepted, and the appellate case is heard in writing by a professional collegial panel. Different from the principle of comprehensive review of the two-instance system of final appeal, under the system of limited third instance, the court of third instance only focuses on whether the law applicable to the judgment of an appeal case has legitimacy or not. The question of fact part of the second appeal case is outside the scope of examination by the third instance court. The separation of legal and factual issues at the third instance level can be realized because a prominent feature of the third instance is that it pays more attention to the unification of the application of the law in general cases rather than to the realization of case justice. The purpose of this way is to make the judges of the third instance, that is, the Court of final Appeal, devote their limited energy to the consideration of legal issues, thus giving the third instance judges a more objective and solid basis in the judicial judgment of legal issues rather than the facts of the case. The reason why it is necessary to establish the limited third instance final appeal system is that the current trial grade system can no longer meet the diversified trend of case types, and can not ensure the unification of the application of the law and the authority of the effective adjudication. The number of cases that can enter the third instance is very small, because the appeal condition of the third instance is more strict, and the nature of the legal trial makes the case that can enter the court of third instance can only be a legal case with general guiding significance. The legal theorists have studied this procedure for many years and formed many valuable research results. The legal practice also accumulates a lot of beneficial experience in the course of handling cases, which provides a solid theoretical and practical basis for the establishment of the limited third instance final appeal system in our country. As to how to construct the limited third instance final appeal system in our country, the author combines the theory and practice, mainly from the case type, that is, the object amount and the appeal reason is a legal question or a fact problem, is a case or a universal case and appeals to the subject. The causes and the procedure of decision, the way of examination and trial, and the reconstruction of the court's function are discussed in detail. The establishment of the limited three-instance system is not the abolition of the two-instance system, but the conditional implementation of the three-instance system on the basis of the current system.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：遼寧大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D925.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 胡煒冬;;完善我國(guó)現(xiàn)行民事審級(jí)制度之探析[J];法制與社會(huì);2011年14期

2 姚紹芬;;我國(guó)兩審終審制度的考量——以國(guó)外審級(jí)制度比較為視角[J];西安石油大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年01期

3 陳松林;王召忠;;略論新形勢(shì)下我國(guó)民事審級(jí)制度的完善[J];江蘇大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年01期

4 邢克波;;我國(guó)民事審級(jí)制度的改革與完善[J];廣東工業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年06期

5 王振亮;;淺議我國(guó)審級(jí)制度[J];科技信息;2010年36期

6 梁平;王曉燕;;中國(guó)審級(jí)制度改革——以中美審級(jí)制度的比較為視角[J];法制與社會(huì);2009年29期

7 羅建興;康靜;;論我國(guó)民事審級(jí)制度的改革和完善[J];法制與社會(huì);2009年18期

8 吳婧瑩;周曉芳;;淺述我國(guó)民事審級(jí)制度的重構(gòu)[J];法制與社會(huì);2009年03期

9 康少君;;關(guān)于我國(guó)涉訴信訪(fǎng)問(wèn)題的思考[J];法制與社會(huì);2009年02期

10 徐忠剛;;在民事訴訟中實(shí)現(xiàn)有限三審終審制的構(gòu)建[J];理論觀察;2008年03期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 傅郁林;;審級(jí)制度與法制統(tǒng)一[N];人民法院報(bào);2002年

，

本文編號(hào)：1969883