【作者】 张卓；

【导师】 车传波；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2018， 硕士

【摘要】 民事管辖制度是民事诉讼程序中的一项重要制度,将案件交给有管辖权的法院进行审理才是符合正当程序要求的做法。我国现行民事诉讼法律体系中逐步为当事人赋予了对管辖权的归属提出异议的权利、将管辖权异议裁定作为三种允许上诉的裁定形式之一赋予当事人上诉的权利,且为了打击“司法地方保护主义”滋生,在2007年民事诉讼法的局部修订中将“管辖错误”列为再审事由允许当事人申请再审。但此做法引起实务界与理论界的广泛反对,主流观点认为对管辖问题进行再审救济属于“程序过剩”,并不符合权利与救济的比例原则,因此最高人民法院在2008年出台司法解释对允许再审的管辖错误进行限缩规定,将允许再审的管辖错误形式限定为涉及专属管辖的情形和其他严重违法的情形,此后不久便将“管辖错误”从再审事由中彻底删除,2015年再次通过民事诉讼法司法解释排除管辖权异议终审裁定获得再审救济。我国法律规范虽作如此规定,但通过对裁判文书的检索,发现最高院在新法实施后的司法实务中,仍然存在对管辖权异议终审裁定进行再审审理的情形。所谓“存在即合理”,并且作为司法权威的最高法院作出再审的决定一定不是肆意妄为的。赋予管辖权异议终审裁定的正当性其一是,在我国“重实体轻程序”的传统背景下,通过为管辖权提供三次救济途径不仅代表对程序正义的足够重视,更是对司法公信力的增强与纠纷解决终局性的保障;其二,对比大陆法系其他具有代表性的国家和地区的民事诉讼体系,多为法律适用问题设置了专门的审级,而我国两审终审的审级制度决定了专门法律审的缺失,因此导致多数案件在中级法院即画上了休止符,不利于法律适用的统一,而为管辖权异议终审裁定提供再审救济能够有效避免管辖问题在最高院的视野范围内消失,有助于最高院统一法律适用职能的实现;其三,在长期忽视管辖制度涉及的诉权理论研究背景下,允许管辖权异议终审裁定进入再审程序、赋予其与“驳回起诉”裁定相同的救济程序保障,能够避免管辖制度与诉权相割裂,为当事人向有管辖权的法院提起诉讼这一合法权利提供了充分保障,是更符合公平正义要求的路径选择。与此同时,从实证主义出发,为管辖权异议终审裁定提供再审救济具有现实的、客观上的权利救济需求。能够通过高级别法院的裁判意见为低级别法院在界定专属管辖案件范围、认定仲裁协议效力以确定管辖法院等类型的案件中所遇到的疑难问题提供指导,供下级法院借鉴;其次对于管辖权下放性转移案件,对当事人有效救济途径缺失、上级法院监督和纠错功能无法得以保障的现状进行修正,从而为当事人权利提供足够的救济。综上,允许管辖权异议终审裁定进入再审程序,是在充分论证了制度价值和现实意义的基础上所作出的,有助于达至司法公正与诉讼效率之平衡的制度选择。为实现该制度的根本要义,其在实施上并不能简单行事,需要对再审程序进行优化。首先通过确立再审的补充性原则,要求只有在穷尽其他救济手段的前提下方可启动再审,倒逼当事人及时寻求常规性救济手段。其次适当缩短再审申请期限与审查期限,并对案件实体内容中止审理,以保证管辖问题在实体裁判作出前得以解决。最后,作为后续性问题,为提高诉讼效率,应当在再审程序中根除法院对当事人针对已生效的实体判决提出的“管辖错误”再审事由的审查,唯有如此,方可在公正与效率间寻求一个最优方案。更多还原

【Abstract】 The civil jurisdiction system is an important system in the civil procedure.It is an approach that meets due process requirements when the case is referred to a competent court.In the current legal system of civil lawsuits in China,the parties are gradually given the right to challenge the ascription of the jurisdiction,the jurisdictional objection ruling as the right to appeal to the parties as one of the three allowable forms of appeal,and in order to combat the growth of "judicial local protectionism",in the partial revision of the Civil Procedure Law in 2007,the "jurisdiction error" was listed as a retrial reason allowing the parties to apply for retrial.However,this practice has caused widespread opposition from the practice community and the theoretical community.The prevailing view is that the retrial of the jurisdictional issue is a "procedural surplus",and does not conform to the principle of proportionality of rights and remedies.Therefore,the Supreme People’s Court issued a judicial explanation for permission in 2008.Limit the forms of jurisdictional error allowed for retrial to situations involving exclusive jurisdiction and other serious violations.Jurisdiction of retrials was limited to shrinking,and "jurisdictional errors" were removed from retrials shortly afterwards.In 2015,the retrial retaliation was obtained through the judicial review of civil procedure law to rule out jurisdictional objections.Although China’s legal norms make such provisions,but through the search of judgment documents,found that the Supreme Court in the judicial practice after the implementation of the new law,there is still jurisdiction over the final ruling of the opposition objection to the retrial.The so-called “existence is reasonable”,the decision of the Supreme Court as the judicial authority to make a retrial must not be arbitrary.In our country’s tradition of "Emphasizing entity and Contempt procedure",the legitimacy of awarding the finaladjudication of a jurisdiction objection lies in the fact that the provision of three relief channels for jurisdiction not only represents a sufficient emphasis on procedural justice,but also reinforces the credibility of the judiciary and guarantees the finality of dispute resolution.Secondly,comparing civil litigation systems in other representative countries and regions of the civil law system,they have set up special trials for the application of laws.The final review system of China’s two-instance trial determined the lack of specialized legal review,which led to the suspension of most cases in the intermediate courts,which was detrimental to the uniform application of laws.The provision of retrial remedies for the final adjudication of jurisdiction objections can effectively avoid the disappearance of jurisdictional problems within the scope of the Supreme Court and help realize the realization of the uniform legal application functions of the Supreme Court.The provision of retrial remedies for the final adjudication of jurisdiction objections can effectively avoid the disappearance of jurisdictional problems within the scope of the Supreme Court and help realize the realization of the uniform legal application functions of the Supreme Court.Thirdly,under the background of disregarding the theory of the litigation rights involved in the jurisdictional system.Allowing jurisdiction objection to final adjudication entering retrial procedures can avoid separation of jurisdiction and litigation,provide a path to fully protect the parties’ legal rights to sue in jurisdictional courts.It is a choice that is more in line with fairness and justice requirements.At the same time,the provision of retrial remedies can provide guidance to lower courts for lower-level courts in defining the scope of exclusive jurisdiction and determining the effectiveness of arbitration agreements to determine the difficult issues encountered in the jurisdiction of courts.Secondly,in cases of decentralized transfer of jurisdiction,the lack of effective remedy channels,the failure to supervise and correct the failure of the parties can be corrected so as to provide sufficient remedies for the parties’ rights.In summary,allowing the ruling of jurisdiction over the final adjudication to enter the retrial procedure is based on a full demonstration of the institutional value and the practical significance,which helps to achieve a balance between judicial fairness and litigation efficiency.In order to realize the fundamentalessence of the system,it is necessary to optimize the retrial procedure.By establishing the supplementary principle of retrial,it is required that the retrial can be initiated only under the premise of exhausting other remedies,and that the parties are forced to seek regular remedies in a timely manner.Appropriately shorten the retrial application deadline and review deadline,and suspend the trial of the substantive content of the case to ensure that the jurisdiction issue is resolved before the entity’s referee can make it.As a follow-up question,in order to increase the efficiency of lawsuits,the retrial procedure should be used to eradicate the review of the subject matter of the "jurisdictional error" retried against the entity’s judgment that has taken effect.Only in this way can seek the best solution between fairness and efficiency.更多还原