本文選題：民事訴訟 + 庭前會(huì)議制度�。� 參考：《南京師范大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：2015年我國《民事訴訟法解釋》正式確立了庭前會(huì)議制度。所謂庭前會(huì)議制度,是指在訴訟系屬以后、正式庭審之前,法院召集雙方當(dāng)事人就案件爭議的焦點(diǎn)、雙方準(zhǔn)備在法庭上提出的證據(jù)以及其他有利于促進(jìn)訴訟的事項(xiàng)進(jìn)行協(xié)商的會(huì)議。從保障庭審集中審理的目標(biāo)而言,庭前會(huì)議與審前準(zhǔn)備程序具有一致性,但從它們的外延來看,審前準(zhǔn)備程序卻是庭前會(huì)議的上位概念,二者屬于包含與被包含的關(guān)系。庭前會(huì)議雖然被冠以會(huì)議之名,但從大陸法系國家的立法例以及我國司法實(shí)踐的傳統(tǒng)做法來看,應(yīng)對(duì)“會(huì)議”作擴(kuò)大解釋,即庭前會(huì)議的形式既包括會(huì)議型也包括開庭型。我國民事訴訟中的庭前會(huì)議制度是在司法實(shí)務(wù)界和法學(xué)理論界的不斷探索中逐步建立起來的,其功能不僅包括了明確和固定爭點(diǎn)及證據(jù)的庭審準(zhǔn)備性功能,還包括促進(jìn)當(dāng)事人和解以終結(jié)訴訟的獨(dú)立性程序功能,是公正與效率價(jià)值在民事訴訟審前程序中的具體體現(xiàn)。庭前會(huì)議制度經(jīng)過我國各地法院多年的司法實(shí)踐,對(duì)民事訴訟審判方式的改革起到了積極的作用、發(fā)揮了應(yīng)有的制度功能,但在適用中也暴露出了一些問題。首先,由于缺乏常規(guī)、有效的程序保障機(jī)制和統(tǒng)一的法律規(guī)范的指導(dǎo),庭前會(huì)議在不同法院甚至是不同法庭的操作都存在著明顯的差異,具體表現(xiàn)為適用的案件范圍和交換的證據(jù)范圍不統(tǒng)一、時(shí)間和次數(shù)不統(tǒng)一、主持者和法律效力不統(tǒng)一;其次,由于缺乏對(duì)民事審判方式改革理念的深入認(rèn)識(shí),辦案法官對(duì)庭前會(huì)議的定位、證據(jù)交換與爭點(diǎn)整理的具體開展都存在著不同的理解,庭前會(huì)議的效果往往過度依賴于法官的專業(yè)能力和裁量意志。針對(duì)以上問題,立足我國當(dāng)前的審判實(shí)踐并借鑒國外有益的經(jīng)驗(yàn)及教訓(xùn),試對(duì)庭前會(huì)議及其相關(guān)制度的完善提出若干建議。首先,應(yīng)由最高人民法院以司法解釋的形式作出統(tǒng)一、量化、可操作的庭前會(huì)議操作規(guī)則,以便在日后提高其法律位階;其次,為保證庭前會(huì)議制度在民事訴訟體系中的有效運(yùn)行,還應(yīng)確立強(qiáng)制答辯制度、建立證據(jù)提出命令制度、完善法官釋明制度等相關(guān)配套制度。
[Abstract]:In 2015, China's interpretation of the Civil procedure Law formally established the system of pretrial conference. The so-called pre-court meeting system refers to the focus of the dispute over the case that the court convenes both parties before the formal trial, after the proceedings belong to the court. Meetings in which the parties are prepared to consult on evidence presented in court and other matters conducive to facilitating the proceedings. From the point of view of the objective of ensuring the centralized trial of the trial, the pretrial meeting and the pretrial preparatory procedure are consistent, but from their denotation, the pretrial preparatory procedure is the superior concept of the pretrial meeting, and they belong to the relationship between inclusion and inclusion. Although the antecedents are named as meetings, from the legislative examples of civil law countries and the traditional practice of judicial practice in our country, we should make an expanded interpretation of "meeting", that is, the form of pre-trial meeting includes both the conference type and the court session type. The system of pre-trial meeting in civil litigation in China is gradually established in the constant exploration of judicial practice and legal theory, and its function includes not only the clear and fixed points of contention and the function of trial preparation of evidence. It also includes the independent procedural function of promoting the reconciliation of the parties to terminate the litigation, which is the concrete embodiment of the value of justice and efficiency in the pretrial procedure of civil litigation. After years of judicial practice in various courts of our country, the system of pre-court meeting has played a positive role in the reform of the trial mode of civil litigation and brought into play the proper function of the system. However, some problems have been exposed in the application of the system. First of all, due to the lack of routine, effective procedural safeguards and uniform legal norms, there are significant differences in the operation of pre-trial meetings in different courts and even in different courts. The concrete manifestation is that the scope of applicable cases and the scope of the evidence exchanged are not uniform, the time and times are not unified, the moderator and the legal effect are not unified. Secondly, because of the lack of a deep understanding of the concept of the reform of the civil trial mode, There are different understandings on the orientation of the pre-trial meeting, the exchange of evidence and the arrangement of the points of contention. The effect of the pre-court meeting often depends on the judge's professional ability and discretion. In view of the above problems, based on the current trial practice in our country and drawing on the useful experience and lessons of foreign countries, this paper tries to put forward some suggestions on the perfection of the pretrial conference and its related system. First, the Supreme people's Court shall make uniform, quantifiable and operational rules for the operation of pre-court meetings in the form of judicial interpretation in order to raise its legal rank in the future. In order to ensure the effective operation of the pre-court meeting system in the civil litigation system, it is necessary to establish the system of compulsory defense, establish the system of giving orders for evidence, and perfect the system of interpretation of judges and other related supporting systems.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D925.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 熊躍敏;張潤;;民事庭前會(huì)議:規(guī)范解讀、法理分析與實(shí)證考察[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2016年06期

2 蔣惠嶺;楊小利;;重提民事訴訟中的“庭審中心主義”——兼論20年來民事司法改革之輪回與前途[J];法律適用;2015年12期

3 吳偉華;;文書提出命令制度司法適用研究——以2015年《關(guān)于適用〈中華人民共和國民事訴訟法〉解釋》和臺(tái)灣地區(qū)立法為中心[J];河北學(xué)刊;2015年06期

4 陳昶屹;;試論構(gòu)建法官指導(dǎo)型民事證據(jù)交換程序[J];法律適用;2015年03期

5 孫玉明;;論證據(jù)交換制度在司法中的適用[J];理論界;2013年12期

6 黃ng;;民事庭審中爭點(diǎn)歸納環(huán)節(jié)的問題樣態(tài)與對(duì)策[J];人民司法;2013年05期

7 陳立峰;;法院參與社會(huì)管理背景下民事審前程序的二元性價(jià)值改造——基于正義兩面性的考量[J];中國發(fā)展;2012年03期

8 許少波;;民事訴訟證據(jù)交換制度的立法探討[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2012年03期

9 畢玉謙;;對(duì)現(xiàn)行民事訴訟審前程序進(jìn)行結(jié)構(gòu)性改造的基本思考[J];法律適用;2011年10期

10 黃ng;;民事案件事實(shí)爭點(diǎn)釋明模式建構(gòu)[J];人民司法;2011年15期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 袁新利;譚振榮;;應(yīng)然與實(shí)然:我國民事訴訟證據(jù)交換制度之實(shí)證性分析[A];全國法院第25屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會(huì)獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)撐募汗痉ㄅc行政法實(shí)施問題研究（上冊(cè)）[C];2013年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 湯維建;;答辯失權(quán)是大勢(shì)所趨[N];人民法院報(bào);2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 王奕;美國審前會(huì)議制度研究[D];清華大學(xué);2005年

，

本文編號(hào)：2100029