民事再審中的立案審查問題研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-08-04 16:01
【摘要】：在2012年民事訴訟法修訂之前，我國已經(jīng)出臺了與再審民事立案審查制度相關(guān)的一些法律法規(guī)和司法解釋。具體包括最高人民法院出臺的《關(guān)于受理審查民事申請再審案件的若干意見》、《審判監(jiān)督司法解釋》兩部司法解釋，并在2011年1月召開了第一次全國民事再審審查工作會議，并印發(fā)了《第一次全國民事再審審查工作會議紀(jì)要》。這些規(guī)定的出臺，對民事再審立案中的一些亟待解決的問題做了規(guī)定，對民事再審立案工作的推進(jìn)起到了重要作用。 2012年新民事訴訟法中對民事再審立案審查問題又做了新的修訂。其中第199條規(guī)定了有限的條件下可向原審法院申請再審的制度。即當(dāng)事人一方人數(shù)眾多或者當(dāng)事人雙方為公民的案件，也可以向原審人民法院申請再審。第200條對申請再這的條件也做了修訂，第一是將原來第五項事由中的“對案件審理需要的證據(jù)”修改為“對案件審理需要的主要證據(jù)”，限定了因法院依申請未調(diào)查證據(jù)而導(dǎo)致再審的案件范圍；第二是取消了原來第七項管轄錯誤這一再審事由；第三是取消了“違反法定程序可能影響案件正確判決、裁定”這一再審事由。第205條對當(dāng)事人申請再審的期限做了修訂，由原來的兩年修改為6個月。另外對有法定情形，當(dāng)事人可以“自知道或者應(yīng)當(dāng)知道之日起三個月提出”的時間改為了“自知道或者應(yīng)當(dāng)知道之日起六個月提出”，以方便當(dāng)事人收集、提供證據(jù)。這些修訂，使得部分案件可以向原審人民法院申請再審，民事再審的事由表述得更加合理，并將再審申請的期限縮短為6個月，這些都對民事再審立案審查制度的發(fā)展都有很大的進(jìn)步意義。 雖然2012年新《民事訴訟法》的修訂，使得民事再審立案審查制度進(jìn)一步完善，，但是，在民事再審立案審查領(lǐng)域，仍然存在著某些方面不夠細(xì)化，操作性不強等問題。此外，在2012年新《民事訴訟法》頒布后，至今鮮有學(xué)者對此做出專門研究。因此，在新民訴法出臺之后，針對新民訴法的再審立案審查問題進(jìn)行深入研究，進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)梳理、發(fā)現(xiàn)問題并提出有針對性的法律建議，就顯得更為重要。
[Abstract]:Before the revision of the Civil procedure Law in 2012, China has issued some laws and regulations and judicial interpretations related to the review system of retrial civil case. In particular, the Supreme people's Court issued several opinions on accepting and examining cases concerning the retrial of civil applications, and the Judicial interpretation of trial Supervision, two judicial interpretations, and held the first national conference on the review of civil retrial in January 2011. A summary of the first National Review Conference on Civil retrial was issued. With the introduction of these provisions, some problems that need to be solved urgently in civil retrial and filing have been stipulated. It has played an important role in the promotion of civil retrial filing. In the 2012 new civil procedure law, a new revision has been made to the civil retrial filing examination. Article 199 prescribes a system under limited conditions to apply to the original court for retrial. In cases where one party is numerous or both parties are citizens, they may also apply to the people's court for retrial. Article 200 also makes amendments to the conditions for application for reprocessing. The first is to amend the term "evidence required for the hearing of a case" in the original fifth subject matter to read "the main evidence required for the hearing of the case." Limiting the scope of the case that resulted from the failure of the court to investigate the evidence applied for; second, cancelling the reason for the retrial of the original seventh jurisdictional error; and third, cancelling the "violation of legal procedures may affect the correct judgment of the case," Ruling "on the merits of the retrial." Article 205 amended the time limit for application for retrial from two years to six months. In addition, for the legal situation, the time of "three months from the date of knowing or ought to know" can be changed to "six months from the date of knowing or ought to know", so as to facilitate the parties to collect and provide evidence. These amendments enabled some cases to apply to the people's court of the original instance for a retrial. The reason for the civil retrial was more reasonable, and the time limit for the application for the retrial was shortened to six months. All these are of great significance to the development of civil retrial filing and examination system. Although the revision of the new Civil procedure Law in 2012 makes the civil retrial filing examination system more perfect, there are still some problems in the field of civil retrial filing and examination, such as not being detailed in some aspects and not having strong maneuverability. In addition, after the promulgation of the new Code of Civil procedure in 2012, few scholars have made special research on it. Therefore, after the promulgation of the New Civil Action Law, it is more important to conduct a thorough study on the retrial case of the New Civil Action Law, to systematically sort out the problems, to find the problems and to put forward targeted legal suggestions.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：太原科技大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.1
本文編號：2164389
[Abstract]:Before the revision of the Civil procedure Law in 2012, China has issued some laws and regulations and judicial interpretations related to the review system of retrial civil case. In particular, the Supreme people's Court issued several opinions on accepting and examining cases concerning the retrial of civil applications, and the Judicial interpretation of trial Supervision, two judicial interpretations, and held the first national conference on the review of civil retrial in January 2011. A summary of the first National Review Conference on Civil retrial was issued. With the introduction of these provisions, some problems that need to be solved urgently in civil retrial and filing have been stipulated. It has played an important role in the promotion of civil retrial filing. In the 2012 new civil procedure law, a new revision has been made to the civil retrial filing examination. Article 199 prescribes a system under limited conditions to apply to the original court for retrial. In cases where one party is numerous or both parties are citizens, they may also apply to the people's court for retrial. Article 200 also makes amendments to the conditions for application for reprocessing. The first is to amend the term "evidence required for the hearing of a case" in the original fifth subject matter to read "the main evidence required for the hearing of the case." Limiting the scope of the case that resulted from the failure of the court to investigate the evidence applied for; second, cancelling the reason for the retrial of the original seventh jurisdictional error; and third, cancelling the "violation of legal procedures may affect the correct judgment of the case," Ruling "on the merits of the retrial." Article 205 amended the time limit for application for retrial from two years to six months. In addition, for the legal situation, the time of "three months from the date of knowing or ought to know" can be changed to "six months from the date of knowing or ought to know", so as to facilitate the parties to collect and provide evidence. These amendments enabled some cases to apply to the people's court of the original instance for a retrial. The reason for the civil retrial was more reasonable, and the time limit for the application for the retrial was shortened to six months. All these are of great significance to the development of civil retrial filing and examination system. Although the revision of the new Civil procedure Law in 2012 makes the civil retrial filing examination system more perfect, there are still some problems in the field of civil retrial filing and examination, such as not being detailed in some aspects and not having strong maneuverability. In addition, after the promulgation of the new Code of Civil procedure in 2012, few scholars have made special research on it. Therefore, after the promulgation of the New Civil Action Law, it is more important to conduct a thorough study on the retrial case of the New Civil Action Law, to systematically sort out the problems, to find the problems and to put forward targeted legal suggestions.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：太原科技大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.1
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條
1 劉恒;;論民事檢察監(jiān)督的范圍[J];河北法學(xué);2008年07期
2 廖永安;我國民事訴訟主管范圍之問題評析[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2005年01期
3 虞政平;我國再審制度的淵源、弊端及完善建議[J];政法論壇;2003年02期
本文編號：2164389
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/susongfa/2164389.html
