本文選題：當(dāng)事人 + 申請(qǐng)法院調(diào)查取證制度　； 參考：《湘潭大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：在訴訟當(dāng)中,證據(jù)的重要地位不言而喻。是否有充足的、恰當(dāng)?shù)淖C據(jù)來支撐和論證自己的訴訟請(qǐng)求,直接決定著當(dāng)事人的合法權(quán)益是否能夠得到應(yīng)有的維護(hù)和保障。但是當(dāng)事人在具體取證過程中并非總是能夠一帆風(fēng)順,可能陷入“力不從心”的困境,故立法上設(shè)立當(dāng)事人申請(qǐng)法院調(diào)查取證制度。當(dāng)事人申請(qǐng)法院調(diào)查取證作為當(dāng)事人收集證據(jù)手段之一,如果能夠確保該項(xiàng)制度運(yùn)行良好,則具有增強(qiáng)其證據(jù)收集力,實(shí)現(xiàn)證據(jù)收集力與證明責(zé)任統(tǒng)一,保障法院查明案件真相的重要意義。恰逢其會(huì),2012年《民事訴訟法》、2015年《最高人民法院關(guān)于民事訴訟法的解釋》(以下簡稱《民訴法解釋》)相繼施行,關(guān)于當(dāng)事人申請(qǐng)法院調(diào)查取證制度方面呈現(xiàn)較大變動(dòng),如將申請(qǐng)調(diào)查收集證據(jù)的時(shí)間改為“舉證期限屆滿前”,同時(shí),新增審查申請(qǐng)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),即當(dāng)事人申請(qǐng)調(diào)查的證據(jù),若與待證事實(shí)無關(guān)聯(lián)、對(duì)待證事實(shí)無意義,法院應(yīng)不予許可。法律條文上的變動(dòng)必將為司法實(shí)務(wù)帶來影響,或者說其合理程度將于司法實(shí)踐中得到檢驗(yàn)。經(jīng)觀察,在司法實(shí)務(wù)當(dāng)中,尚存在如下問題:法院拒絕調(diào)查取證申請(qǐng)的案件較多;新增審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)之間關(guān)系不明;法院對(duì)于不予許可調(diào)查取證申請(qǐng)的理由陳述不清;當(dāng)事人以法院拒絕申請(qǐng)為由上訴的案件增多。這些問題的存在表明該項(xiàng)制度在具體司法實(shí)踐中運(yùn)行不良,甚至存在“虛化”的可能性。如此,則該項(xiàng)制度之應(yīng)有價(jià)值難以充分實(shí)現(xiàn)。通過進(jìn)一步分析,其問題根源主要在于以下幾方面:“實(shí)體公正”理念向“司法效益”理念轉(zhuǎn)變;法院與當(dāng)事人間存在利益沖突;當(dāng)事人和法官于待證事實(shí)認(rèn)知上存在差異;具體配套制度構(gòu)建尚不完善;法律概念模糊及條文歧義等原因。為解決上述現(xiàn)有問題,首先應(yīng)回歸制度設(shè)置初衷以確立指導(dǎo)價(jià)值理念—維護(hù)當(dāng)事人權(quán)益;并明確審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)間關(guān)系,實(shí)現(xiàn)寬松化審查;明確具體標(biāo)準(zhǔn);完善救濟(jì)程序;改變法院調(diào)查取證方式;建設(shè)法官問責(zé)制度;完善法官闡明制度。通過以上措施合力推動(dòng)當(dāng)事人申請(qǐng)法院調(diào)查取證制度健康運(yùn)行,保證其良性發(fā)展,實(shí)現(xiàn)其制度預(yù)設(shè)功能。
[Abstract]:In litigation, the important position of evidence is self-evident.Whether there are sufficient and appropriate evidence to support and demonstrate their claims directly determines whether the legitimate rights and interests of the parties can be safeguarded and protected.However, the parties are not always able to obtain evidence in the process of smooth sailing, may fall into the plight of "unable to do", so legislation to establish the litigants application for court investigation and evidence collection system.If the parties apply to the court to investigate and collect evidence as one of the means for the parties to collect evidence, if they can ensure that the system works well, it will enhance their ability to collect evidence and realize the unity of the power of collecting evidence and the burden of proof.The importance of guaranteeing the court the truth of the case.Coinciding with its meeting, the 2012 Civil procedure Law, the 2015 interpretation of the Supreme people's Court on the Civil procedure Law (hereinafter referred to as "the interpretation of the Civil procedure Law") has been implemented one after another, and the system of litigants applying for court investigation and collection of evidence has shown great changes.If the time for application for investigation and collection of evidence is changed to "before the expiry of the time limit for proof", at the same time, a new criterion for examining the application is added, that is, if the parties apply for evidence of investigation, if there is no connection with the facts to be proved and there is no point in treating the facts of the evidence, the court should not grant permission.The change of legal provisions will bring influence to judicial practice, or its reasonable degree will be tested in judicial practice.It is observed that in judicial practice there are still the following problems: there are more cases where the court refuses to investigate the application for evidence; the relationship between the new examination criteria is not clear; the court is not clear about the reasons for not granting the application for investigation of evidence;The number of cases in which the parties appealed on the grounds that the court refused the application increased.The existence of these problems indicates that the system does not work well in the concrete judicial practice, and even exists the possibility of "vanity".In this way, the value of the system should not be fully realized.Through further analysis, the root of the problem lies in the following aspects: the transformation of the concept of "substantial justice" to the concept of "judicial benefit"; the conflict of interests between the court and the parties; the difference between the parties and the judges in the cognition of the facts to be proved;The concrete supporting system construction is not perfect, the legal concept is vague and the article is ambiguous and so on.In order to solve the above problems, first of all, we should return to the original intention of setting up the system in order to establish the guiding value concept-to safeguard the rights and interests of the parties, and clearly examine the relationship between standards, realize the lenient examination, clarify the specific standards, perfect the relief procedures;To change the way of court investigation and collection of evidence; to build the system of judges' accountability; to perfect the system of clarification of judges.Through the above measures to promote the litigants to apply for court investigation and evidence system to run healthily, to ensure its benign development, to achieve its system presupposition function.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(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8條

1 周洋;;辯論原則下民事證據(jù)收集制度的兩種進(jìn)路——兼評(píng)我國《民事訴訟法》之修改[J];西部法學(xué)評(píng)論;2013年04期

2 肖晗;;論民事證據(jù)收集制度的完善——以訴訟效益為視角[J];湖南師范大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2012年04期

3 陳懷峰;;司法效益的方法論思考——以審判資源的成本配置為視角[J];齊魯學(xué)刊;2012年04期

4 李德恩;石浩旭;;證據(jù)關(guān)聯(lián)性:一個(gè)利益衡量的命題[J];山西師大學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年01期

5 李浩;;回歸民事訴訟法——法院依職權(quán)調(diào)查取證的再改革[J];法學(xué)家;2011年03期

6 胡思博;;建立民事裁定救濟(jì)途徑體系的基礎(chǔ)性考察——以完善我國民事裁定制度為出發(fā)點(diǎn)[J];西部法學(xué)評(píng)論;2010年05期

7 李浩;;論民事訴訟當(dāng)事人的申請(qǐng)調(diào)查取證權(quán)[J];法學(xué)家;2010年03期

8 郭星華;隋嘉濱;;徘徊在情理與法理之間——試論中國法律現(xiàn)代化所面臨的困境[J];中南民族大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年02期

，

本文編號(hào)：1734099