本文選題：再審審查程序 + 再審審理程序　； 參考：《湘潭大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：再審程序,是我國學(xué)術(shù)界對審判監(jiān)督程序在學(xué)理上的一種通稱。再審制度是我國訴訟制度的一個重要組成部分。申請再審是當(dāng)事人尋求司法救濟(jì)的最終途徑。再審制度關(guān)涉程序安定性與實體公正兩種相互對抗的價值理念。民事申請再審審查程序處于再審?fù)ǖ馈瓣P(guān)口”的關(guān)鍵位置,除了具有決定當(dāng)事人申請再審案件是否再審的功能之外,其更為重要的司法意義是通過阻止不必要的再審申請進(jìn)入到再審審理程序中以衡平和協(xié)調(diào)程序安定性與實體公正兩種價值追求。具體而言,再審審查程序承擔(dān)著再審過濾、預(yù)防監(jiān)督、權(quán)益救濟(jì)、矛盾化解等多重功能。當(dāng)事人申請再審,法院對再審申請進(jìn)行審查后作出再審或者駁回再審申請的再審審查裁定。審查結(jié)果直接決定當(dāng)事人申請再審的成功與否。當(dāng)事人申請再審的案件被裁定再審才能進(jìn)入再審審理階段。因此,民事申請再審審查程序是決定案件是否再審的關(guān)鍵性程序。然而,通過對司法實務(wù)之觀察,筆者發(fā)現(xiàn)該項程序尚存在如下問題:受理再審申請的部門不明確;再審申請的審查期限形同虛設(shè);再審審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)混亂;審查程序不透明;審查模式不統(tǒng)一;審查階段調(diào)解主體與效力不明;再審免訴訟費致使濫訴現(xiàn)象頻生。上述這些問題的存在,直接或間接地削弱了再審審查程序的應(yīng)有功能,事實上也阻礙了再審制度的暢通運行。不可否認(rèn),法律關(guān)于申請再審審查程的規(guī)定過于簡單是導(dǎo)致司法實踐中存在諸多問題的主要根源。再審審查之訴在司法實踐中得不到落實。這不僅令當(dāng)事人申請再審權(quán)難以得到保障,也使得濫用訴權(quán)、纏訴、惡意訴訟現(xiàn)象頻現(xiàn)。為解決現(xiàn)有問題,使再審審查程序健康運行,實現(xiàn)既判力維護(hù)與依法糾錯之間的協(xié)調(diào)。完善民事申請再審審查程序,首先,應(yīng)確定正確的審查原則,即有限原則、程序法定原則、審查公開原則。其次,應(yīng)明確再審申請受理部門、明確再審事由審查主體、明確再審審查方式和具體化審查規(guī)則、規(guī)范審查期限計算等四個方面規(guī)范和完善申請再審審查制度。最后,應(yīng)通過強(qiáng)化再審申請的訴訟指導(dǎo)制度、建立申請再審案件預(yù)收費制度、暢通訴訟與調(diào)解的銜接等三個方面完善相關(guān)配套機(jī)制。
[Abstract]:Retrial procedure is a general term for trial supervision procedure in Chinese academic circles. Retrial system is an important part of our litigation system. Application for retrial is the final way for the parties to seek judicial relief. The system of retrial involves two kinds of values: procedural stability and substantive justice. The civil application retrial examination procedure is in the key position of the retrial channel "gate", in addition to having the function of deciding whether the party applies for retrial case or not, Its more important judicial significance is to prevent unnecessary retrial application from entering the retrial procedure in order to balance and coordinate the stability of procedure and the pursuit of substantive justice. Specifically, the retrial review process undertakes many functions, such as retrial filtering, prevention and supervision, rights and interests relief, conflict resolution and so on. If a party applies for a retrial, the court shall, after examining the retrial application, make a retrial examination order or reject the retrial application. The result of the examination directly determines the success of the party's application for retrial. The case that the party applies for retrial can enter the stage of retrial only if the case is ordered to retry. Therefore, the review procedure of civil application retrial is the key procedure to decide whether the case should be retried. However, through the observation of judicial practice, the author finds that the procedure has the following problems: the department accepting the retrial application is not clear, the examination period of the retrial application is empty, the standard of retrial review is confused, the review procedure is not transparent; The mode of examination is not uniform; the subject and effect of mediation are not clear in the stage of examination; The existence of these problems directly or indirectly weakens the proper function of the retrial review procedure and in fact impedes the smooth operation of the retrial system. It is undeniable that the legal provisions on the procedure of application for retrial are too simple and the main cause of many problems in judicial practice. The lawsuit of retrial and review can not be carried out in judicial practice. This not only makes it difficult for the parties to apply for retrial right to be protected, but also causes abuse of the right of action, entanglement and malice litigation. In order to solve the existing problems, make the procedure of retrial and review run healthily, and realize the coordination between the maintenance of res judicata and the correction of errors according to law. In order to perfect the procedure of retrial of civil application, we should first of all determine the correct principle of examination, that is, the principle of limitation, the principle of procedural law and the principle of examination and openness. Secondly, we should make clear the department of accepting the retrial application, clarify the subject of the retrial subject, clarify the retrial examination method and concrete examination rules, standardize the calculation of the review period, and standardize and perfect the application retrial review system. Finally, we should strengthen the litigation guidance system of the retrial application, establish the pre-charge system of the application retrial case, unblock the connection between litigation and mediation, and perfect the relevant supporting mechanism.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D925.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 武建華;;民事糾紛案件再審的審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];人民司法(應(yīng)用);2016年13期

2 楊翔;;我國法官自由裁量權(quán):存在、運行及規(guī)制[J];湘潭大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2016年01期

3 茍正金;謝瓊麗;;再審審查制度對司法公信力的檢視與提升——以A省B市的司法實踐為分析樣本[J];社會科學(xué)研究;2015年05期

4 李洪波;;民事再審受理與審查程序的規(guī)范和完善[J];山東審判;2015年04期

5 崔玉清;林文學(xué);;完善民事再審審查制度的思考[J];人民檢察;2013年22期

6 王瑋;;檢視與反思:民事再審審查環(huán)節(jié)存在的問題及對策建議——以民事再審權(quán)利救濟(jì)功能的實現(xiàn)為視角[J];山東審判;2011年06期

7 胡思博;;論雙階段型再審立案審查程序的構(gòu)建——以對再審之訴的雙重審查為基礎(chǔ)[J];研究生法學(xué);2011年05期

8 山東省高級人民法院再審立案庭課題組;侯建軍;孟祥剛;;民事再審:在訴權(quán)保護(hù)與依法糾錯中尋求平衡——關(guān)于民事再審審查程序規(guī)范和完善的調(diào)研報告[J];山東審判;2011年04期

9 李磊;;關(guān)于A省高院民事再審審查工作的調(diào)研報告[J];法治論壇;2011年02期

10 鄭學(xué)林;劉小飛;謝勇;張小潔;;《第一次民事再審審查工作會議紀(jì)要》的理解與適用[J];人民司法;2011年11期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前8條

1 劉爭遠(yuǎn);王曉江;;陜西規(guī)范民事申請再審案件審查工作[N];人民法院報;2014年

2 熊理思;;民事再審審查 三對概念辨析[N];人民法院報;2013年

3 張先明;;辦案質(zhì)效有所提高 工作機(jī)制逐步理順[N];人民法院報;2013年

4 劉濤 ;賈明會;;陜西高院民事再審審查工作上水平[N];西部法制報;2013年

5 王聰;;程序安定是民事訴訟的內(nèi)在價值取向[N];人民法院報;2011年

6 孟煥良;;浙江民事再審審查每案必談[N];人民法院報;2011年

7 羅書臻;;積極探索審判規(guī)律 依法保障當(dāng)事人訴權(quán)[N];人民法院報;2011年

8 羅書臻;;充分發(fā)揮民事再審審查的監(jiān)督職能 為服務(wù)大局和樹立司法公信力服務(wù)[N];人民法院報;2011年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 孟憲玲;民事申請再審審查程序法律問題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2012年

2 馬月;我國民事再審審查程序研究[D];西北大學(xué);2011年

3 葉靜;對當(dāng)前我國民事再審審查制度的反思與重構(gòu)[D];西南政法大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號：2029127