【摘要】：民事再審程序是對(duì)生效的一審或二審民事案件在認(rèn)定案件事實(shí)或適用法律方面存在錯(cuò)誤進(jìn)行糾正的特殊程序。該程序的存在,能夠確保案件質(zhì)量,維護(hù)民事主體的合法權(quán)益,實(shí)現(xiàn)司法公正,是民事訴訟程序的重要補(bǔ)充。文章就法院、檢察院、當(dāng)事人三類主體啟動(dòng)民事再審的現(xiàn)狀展開了分析,對(duì)其在啟動(dòng)民事再審程序中存在的缺陷和不足作了進(jìn)一步深入研究,并提出應(yīng)當(dāng)合理構(gòu)建我國(guó)的民事再審啟動(dòng)主體制度。目前,我們的民事再審在啟動(dòng)主體方面規(guī)定的很不合理。作為審判機(jī)關(guān)的人民法院主動(dòng)啟動(dòng)再審,不僅不符合裁判既判力理論,而且與法院的中立裁判者身份背道而馳。作為監(jiān)督機(jī)關(guān)的人民檢察院抗訴啟動(dòng)再審,也同樣侵犯了當(dāng)事人的訴權(quán),打破了民事訴訟等腰三角平衡關(guān)系,直接造成訴訟雙方地位的不平等；同時(shí),檢察機(jī)關(guān)擁有幾乎不受任何時(shí)間和空間制約的抗訴權(quán),更是導(dǎo)致訴訟資源浪費(fèi)、引起法檢雙方發(fā)生沖突的主要原因。而作為最應(yīng)當(dāng)受到法律保護(hù)、最迫切需要通過啟動(dòng)再審來維護(hù)自身合法權(quán)益的訴訟當(dāng)事人,想要啟動(dòng)再審程序卻異常艱難。當(dāng)事人只能通過向法院或檢察院提出申請(qǐng),經(jīng)其審查后決定是否應(yīng)該啟動(dòng)再審。很顯然,這對(duì)當(dāng)事人訴權(quán)的實(shí)現(xiàn)相當(dāng)不利。該文主張應(yīng)當(dāng)取消人民法院作為啟動(dòng)再審的主體資格,保留人民檢察院有限抗訴的再審主體資格,最終建立當(dāng)事人再審之訴的民事再審啟動(dòng)主體模式。只有對(duì)我國(guó)民事再審的啟動(dòng)主體加以調(diào)整,合理構(gòu)建,賦予當(dāng)事人再審啟動(dòng)權(quán),建立再審之訴,才能從根本上改變?cè)賹弳?dòng)主體制度存在的弊端,從而實(shí)現(xiàn)民事訴訟法公平正義原則。
[Abstract]:The civil retrial procedure is a special procedure to correct the errors in the cognizance of the facts of the case or the application of the law in the effective first or second instance civil cases. The existence of this procedure can ensure the quality of the case, safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the civil subject, and realize judicial justice, which is an important supplement to the civil procedure. This paper analyzes the current situation of the civil retrial initiated by the court, the procuratorate and the parties, and makes a further in-depth study on its defects and shortcomings in the initiation of the civil retrial procedure. And put forward that we should construct the system of civil retrial initiation in our country reasonably. At present, our civil retrial in the initiation of the main provisions of the unreasonable. As a judicial organ, the people's court initiates the retrial on its own initiative, which not only does not accord with the theory of res judicata, but also runs counter to the neutral judge's status of the court. The people's Procuratorate, as a supervisory organ, also infringed upon the litigant's right of action and broke the balance of the equal-waist triangle in civil litigation, which directly resulted in the inequality of the status of both parties in the lawsuit. The procuratorial organ has the right to protest almost without any restriction of time and space, which leads to the waste of litigation resources and the conflict between the two parties. As the litigant who should be protected by law most urgently need to start retrial to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests but it is very difficult to start the retrial procedure. The party can only apply to the court or procuratorate and decide whether a retrial should be initiated. Obviously, this is quite unfavorable to the realization of litigant's right of action. The article argues that the people's court should be cancelled as the subject qualification for initiating the retrial, the people's procuratorate should retain the qualification of the retrial subject of limited protest, and finally establish the civil retrial starting subject mode of the litigant's retrial action. Only by adjusting the starting subject of the civil retrial in our country, constructing reasonably, giving the parties the right to start the retrial and establishing the action of the retrial, can the malpractice of the system of starting the civil retrial be fundamentally changed. So as to realize the principle of fairness and justice in civil procedure law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.1

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 付大文;;民事再審訴訟的協(xié)調(diào)運(yùn)行[J];中共鄭州市委黨校學(xué)報(bào);2006年02期

2 趙杏一;;我國(guó)民事再審的現(xiàn)狀解析與完善[J];公民與法(法學(xué)版);2012年01期

3 顧韜;對(duì)我國(guó)民事再審制度的反思及改良建議[J];人民司法;2000年03期

4 伍賢華,肖國(guó)耀;職權(quán)式民事再審制度的否定性思考[J];郴州師范高等專科學(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2001年01期

5 歐陽明發(fā),余向陽;單一制民事再審制度的法律構(gòu)建[J];法學(xué)雜志;2001年06期

6 崔莉花;;淺談我國(guó)的民事再審制度[J];吉林廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2001年04期

7 李亮;對(duì)我國(guó)民事再審制度的反思[J];江西行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年S1期

8 張麗霞;;日本民事再審制度的運(yùn)作現(xiàn)狀及啟示[J];南開大學(xué)法政學(xué)院學(xué)術(shù)論叢;2002年00期

9 喬煜;論民事再審制度的弊端及其完善[J];社科縱橫;2003年04期

10 任禮姝;;試論我國(guó)民事再審制度的局限性及其改革方向[J];改革與開放;2004年10期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前2條

1 李運(yùn)午;;關(guān)于民事再審制度的研究[A];中國(guó)民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2004年

2 程媛媛;;司法公信力導(dǎo)向下的民事再審制度重塑——以再審自由裁量權(quán)的行使情況為實(shí)證[A];全國(guó)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10條

1 上海市黃浦區(qū)人民法院 熊理思;民事再審審查 三對(duì)概念辨析[N];人民法院報(bào);2013年

2 劉松楊;正確處理民事再審案[N];人民法院報(bào);2013年

3 湖南省高級(jí)人民法院審判監(jiān)督庭 朱紹清;淺談構(gòu)建民事再審的原則[N];人民法院報(bào);2001年

4 本報(bào)記者 姚晨奕　本報(bào)通訊員 李振鋒 伍第斐 譚品珍;民事再審 非對(duì)抗[N];人民法院報(bào);2010年

5 記者 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(bào);2011年

6 ;最高法:發(fā)揮民事再審審查監(jiān)督職能[N];新華每日電訊;2011年

7 記者 楊維漢;全國(guó)高院將專設(shè)機(jī)構(gòu)審查民事再審案件[N];新華每日電訊;2011年

8 記者 盧林峰;提高民事再審效率化解糾紛[N];廣西法治日?qǐng)?bào);2011年

9 記者 孟煥良;浙江民事再審審查每案必談[N];人民法院報(bào);2011年

10 特約記者 朱e，

本文編號(hào)：2236578