论申请再审制度的改革与完善

【作者】 王晓东；

【导师】 赵可星；

【作者基本信息】 郑州大学 ， 法学， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 司法是社会正义的最后一道屏障，而如果司法本身缺少必要的监督和制约，则司法权有可能成为决堤之水。因此，对司法权本身，也要设置多层的监控制约机制，保证司法权威，再审制度就是一项重要的救济、监督与纠错制度，而且也是最后屏障的最后一道闸口。 民事再审制度在我国的确立，始于1991年颁行的《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》。不可否认，该制度的运行对维护与实现司法公正与效率的有机统一，维护与实现实体公正与程序公正的有机统一，维护与实现司法公正性与确定性的有机统一，发挥了积极作用。但是，随着我国法制现代化进程的不断深入，民事诉讼制度的不断完善，我国现行的民事再审制度在以下几个主要方面弊端日渐凸现：一是当事人申诉与申请再审制度并存，导致申诉权的滥用，严重背离了设立当事人申请再审制度的初衷；二是审判监督程序与再审程序并存导致审判监督权的扩张与当事人诉权、处分权行使的冲突，致使强职权主义盛行，当事人申请再审只具有辅助作用。人民法院以职权决定再审、检察院以职权抗诉引起再审，均是对当事人私权自治原则的破坏；三是申请再审制度本身规定不完善，导致再审程序的发动具有很大的随意性；四是现行再审制度的不完善使当事人申诉(申请再审)不止，人民法院复查(再审)不止。上述问题的存在，已严重影响了生效裁判的稳定性，损害了司法权威，因此，改革与完善我国的民事再审制度势在必行。 重构我国的民事再审制度，应从以下几个方面进行考虑：一是正确认识“实事求是、有错必纠”指导思想的内涵，确立依法纠错的基本原则；二是按照诉权模式确定当事人提起再审之诉的形式要件和实质要件，取消法院依职权决定再审，取消检察院抗诉引起再审；三是确定适格的再审申请主体，即案件的当事人。同时，为了防止案件当事人损害第三人的合法权益的情况，应建立第三人对生效裁判及调解协议的异议制度；四是明确界定申请再审的对象和范围，可考虑在原来已规定的基础上增加以下规定：1、对于调解结案的，当事人不得申请再审；2、对于未提起上诉的案件，不得申请再审；3、最高法院终审的案件，不得申请再审；4、按照督促程序、公示催告程序、企业破产还债程序审理的案件，人民法院裁定撤销仲裁裁决和裁定不予执行仲裁裁决的案件，当事人不得申请再审;五是明确规定申请再审的时限、次数和管辖法院，当事人申请再审的期限可确定为一年。对检察院或第三人提出异议的，期限可确定为两年。申请再审的次数，原则上只限一次，管辖法院应确定为作出生效裁判法院的上一级法院;六是科学合理地界定申请再审的实质要件，使再审的标准和条件进一步细化，便于操作和执行;七是规范当事人申请再审的审查程序，促使再审程序法定化，给当事人申请再审提供程序上的公正;八是明确规定申诉不启动再审程序，从制度上解决申诉权的滥用。更多还原

【Abstract】 Judicatory, without effective restriction and supervision would lead to a disaster of fulfilling social justice. Misused jurisdiction will further cause not just the collapse of political stability but also economic. To this extent, it is necessary to establish a set of effective mechanisms to prevent the abuse of jurisdiction. The establishment of a retrial mechanism in the Chinese legal system thus aims to establish such a set of effective restrictive and supervisory mechanisms to efficiently safeguard the performance of jurisdiction. It becomes the last remedy at law for all the parties involved in civil litigation.The retrial mechanism, trial supervision, was first established in the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China and came into force in early 1991. In theory, it has played a crucial role of fulfilling the three harmonious: harmonious of substantive justice and procedural justice; harmonious of judicial fairness and efficiency with harmonious of judicial righteousness and certainty. Furthermore, it promoted the progressive development of modernization of China’s legal system. Nevertheless, in empirical, it has exposed several uncertainties within the system over the last decade. First, the coexistence of the re -appeal system and the retrial mechanism has lead to the misuse of a party’s right to apply for retrial. This runs counter to the original objective of establishing the mechanism. Second, two types of retrials have damaged the principle of party autonomy. One type arises from protests by the people’s procuratorate and the other from retrial decisions from the various levels of people’s courts. The conflict between parties’ litigious rights and expanded jurisdiction that originates from the co -existence of the re -appeal system and the retrial mechanism leads to that applications for retrials do not work sometimes. Third, retrial procedures may be initiated easily and this creates uncertainty. This is further maintained by endless re -appeals and retrials as thesystem lacks an effective mechanism to achieve a final judgment. These situations have lessened the authority and effectiveness of judgments and orders. It is high time for the reformation of the procedural elements of the retrial mechanism.Several aspects should be considered when approaching the reformation of the procedural elements of the retrial mechanism. First, ’being practical and realistic’ would be the general principles to guild the retrial process, this is to say that every error maintained in effective judgments and orders must be corrected. This will be discussed further in the article. Second, attention will be drawn to the reconstruction of the retrial mechanism in cases of appeal litigation by application of the appellant. The consequence of an annulment of the legislation of retrial cases could be protested by the people’s procuratorate and could be initiated by any level of people’s court. Third, this article proposes that to set up a model of how to distribute the rights of applications for retrials to adequately involved parties. In order to protect the third parties’ legal rights from injuring, also it is necessary to provide them the right of applying for retrial. The paper will provide suggested options that may be legislated to bring about the necessary reforms. These include: i. ) No party to a legally effective conciliation statement shall apply for retrial; ii. ) No party to effective judgments or and orders of first instance shall apply for retrial; iii. ) No party to an effective National Supreme Court judgment or order shall apply for retrial; iv. )With respect to the cases of which could be applied by procedures for recovering a debt, for public invitation to assert claims, for bankruptcy of enterprises as legal persons, or those cases in which the arbitration award has been cancelled by an order of people’s court, no parties shall apply for a retrial; v. ) Limitations and scopes of actions for retrial need to be defined. Applications for retrials by the parties should be filed within on更多还原