本文選題：民事訴訟 + 庭前會議制度　； 參考：《南京師范大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：2015年我國《民事訴訟法解釋》正式確立了庭前會議制度。所謂庭前會議制度,是指在訴訟系屬以后、正式庭審之前,法院召集雙方當事人就案件爭議的焦點、雙方準備在法庭上提出的證據(jù)以及其他有利于促進訴訟的事項進行協(xié)商的會議。從保障庭審集中審理的目標而言,庭前會議與審前準備程序具有一致性,但從它們的外延來看,審前準備程序卻是庭前會議的上位概念,二者屬于包含與被包含的關系。庭前會議雖然被冠以會議之名,但從大陸法系國家的立法例以及我國司法實踐的傳統(tǒng)做法來看,應對“會議”作擴大解釋,即庭前會議的形式既包括會議型也包括開庭型。我國民事訴訟中的庭前會議制度是在司法實務界和法學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及證據(jù)的庭審準備性功能,還包括促進當事人和解以終結訴訟的獨立性程序功能,是公正與效率價值在民事訴訟審前程序中的具體體現(xiàn)。庭前會議制度經(jīng)過我國各地法院多年的司法實踐,對民事訴訟審判方式的改革起到了積極的作用、發(fā)揮了應有的制度功能,但在適用中也暴露出了一些問題。首先,由于缺乏常規(guī)、有效的程序保障機制和統(tǒng)一的法律規(guī)范的指導,庭前會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,由于缺乏對民事審判方式改革理念的深入認識,辦案法官對庭前會議的定位、證據(jù)交換與爭點整理的具體開展都存在著不同的理解,庭前會議的效果往往過度依賴于法官的專業(yè)能力和裁量意志。針對以上問題,立足我國當前的審判實踐并借鑒國外有益的經(jīng)驗及教訓,試對庭前會議及其相關制度的完善提出若干建議。首先,應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,為保證庭前會議制度在民事訴訟體系中的有效運行,還應確立強制答辯制度、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.
【學位授予單位】：南京師范大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D925.1

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 熊躍敏;張潤;;民事庭前會議:規(guī)范解讀、法理分析與實證考察[J];現(xiàn)代法學;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《關于適用〈中華人民共和國民事訴訟法〉解釋》和臺灣地區(qū)立法為中心[J];河北學刊;2015年06期

4 陳昶屹;;試論構建法官指導型民事證據(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;;民事庭審中爭點歸納環(huán)節(jié)的問題樣態(tài)與對策[J];人民司法;2013年05期

7 陳立峰;;法院參與社會管理背景下民事審前程序的二元性價值改造——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(西北政法大學學報);2012年03期

9 畢玉謙;;對現(xiàn)行民事訴訟審前程序進行結構性改造的基本思考[J];法律適用;2011年10期

10 黃ng;;民事案件事實爭點釋明模式建構[J];人民司法;2011年15期

相關會議論文 前1條

1 袁新利;譚振榮;;應然與實然:我國民事訴訟證據(jù)交換制度之實證性分析[A];全國法院第25屆學術討論會獲獎論文集：公正司法與行政法實施問題研究（上冊）[C];2013年

相關重要報紙文章 前1條

1 湯維建;;答辯失權是大勢所趨[N];人民法院報;2005年

相關碩士學位論文 前1條

1 王奕;美國審前會議制度研究[D];清華大學;2005年

，

本文編號：2100029