【作者】 高杰；

【导师】 姜峰；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法律（专业学位）， 2015， 硕士

【摘要】 2012年新民事诉讼法将检察建议写入,是对以往民事检察监督实践的总结与认可,使再审检察建议拥有了合法的外衣。按照制度的设计,再审检察建议应当在民事检察监督工作中独挡一面,然从民事行政检察监督的理论指导及司法实践角度来看,再审检察建议这项新的检察监督方式仍然存在着诸多不尽人意的地方。新民诉法实施已经有一年有余,笔者因感慨于再审检察建议工作的进度和难度而多有思考,遂展开对再审检察建议的研究,旨在为推动再审检察建议制度的完善略尽绵薄之力。本文结合新民事诉讼法的相关规定,通过对司法实践中不同层级检察机关的业务数据进行研究分析,得出完善再审检察建议的具体方案,以期能够真正改善办案结构、缩短办案周期、提高办案效率,实现法律创设再审检察建议的预设目的。本文包括引言、正文和结语三部分,正文部分共分四章。正文第一部分为再审检察建议的概述。首先,笔者清晰明确地阐述了再审检察建议的概念。其次,笔者总结了再审检察建议的性质。笔者列举了理论界存在的两种关于再审检察建议性质的观点,通过剖析该两种观点的不合理之处,引申出笔者认为正确的性质,即：再审检察建议具有法律监督性和个案指导性,是集公权力与协商体制于一体的柔性法律监督方式。再者,论述了再审检察建议的立法价值和现实意义。本文第二部分为再审检察建议入法的历史进程。该部分笔者首先回顾了再审检察建议的立法进程,自1983年出现了完整的再审检察建议概念开始,到2012年8月新民诉法赋予其法律地位,经历了近三十年的时间。第二部分为再审检察建议的实证考察分析。通过列举分析全国民事检察工作的数据及基层民事检察工作情况,考证再审检察建议的历史发展情况及目前运行态势、特点。本文第三部分为再审检察建议立法缺陷及实践困境。第一方面是再审检察建议的现实问题分析。主要表现在检法两家协调配合不好,再审检察建议的跟进监督及反馈不到位,操作程序不规范。第二方面从再审检察建议的制度及理论角度,表现为民诉法的法律位阶导致其规定过于原则、笼统,缺乏可操作性,法律效力没有涉及,监督效果缺乏保障,民诉法209条作为再审检察建议案件受理的前置条件,监督效果会大打折扣。本文第四部分为再审检察建议的立法及制度完善。笔者从四个方面来论述再审检察建议的完善。从立法的角度上讲,应当明晰再审检察建议与抗诉的适用范围,以促成二者的有机衔接,赋予再审检察建议程序上的强制力,修正再审检察建议的受理条件；程序的规范与设计角度方面,不仅仅需要规范检察机关阶段再审检察建议程序的制发、审批、送达制度,更需要设计制定法院阶段再审检察建议的审查、审议制度；在保障再审检察建议的运行方面,应当建立健全严格的审批决策制度,建立再审检察建议的后续反馈及跟踪监督长效机制,确立再审检察建议的异议处理机制；在提升再审检察建议的质量方面,包括合理引入调查核实制度,检察建议书的公开说理制度,建立长效统一的法律文书库,以及建立科学的考核评估机制；在建立法检沟通协调的长效机制方面,建立联席会议制度,建立检察长列席再审案件审委会制度,检法会签关于再审检察建议的实施细则办法。更多还原

【Abstract】 The inclusion of suggestion from prosecutorial organizations into the new 2012 Civil Procedure Law suggests the summary and recognition of the previous practice of civil prosecutorial supervision, and wraps suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial in the aura of legitimacy. According to the design of this system, suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial should play the dominant role in civil prosecutorial supervision. However, from the perspective of the theoretical guidance and juridical practice of civil and administrative prosecutorial supervision, there are still some unsatisfactory points in suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial-a new way of prosecutorial supervision. Now the new Civil Procedure Law has been put into practice for over one year. Considering the progress and difficulty of the efforts of suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial, the author studies this area, hoping to play a small part in building a better system of suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial.Based on the relevant regulations of the new Civil Procedure Law, the business data of prosecutorial organizations at different levels in judicial practices are analyzed to sum up a specific solution by improving suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial, in the hope of actually enhancing case handling structure, shortening case handling period, improve case handling efficiency and realize the preset goal of legal establishment of suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial.This paper can be boiled down to three parts:the introduction, the main body and the conclusion. The main body is divided into five parts:Chapter Ⅰ presents the review of suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial. First, the author clearly explains the notion of suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial. Second, the properties of suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial are summed up. Also, the author lists two ideas about suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial in the theoretical circle. Through analysis on the two irrational concepts, the author infers the correct properties in her own opinion:suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial includes legal supervision and guidance on individual case. It is a flexible legal supervision that integrates public power and consultation system. Three, explores the legislative value and practical significance of suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial.In Chapter Ⅱ, the author introduces the course of history of suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial. First, the author reviews the 30 years of legislative process of suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial--from the complete notion of suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial in 1983 to its legal status in the new Civil Procedure Law issued in 1983. The second part discusses the empirical analysis of suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial. By listing the data of national civil prosecution work and the condition of civil prosecution work, the historical development and the current trend and characteristics of suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial are examined.Chapter III discusses the legislative deficiencies and practical dilemma of suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial. First, the practical problems in suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial are analyzed. These problems mainly include poor coordination between procuratorate and court, improper follow-up supervision and feedback of suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial, and non-standard operating procedure. Second, from the perspective of the system and theory of suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial, the legal hierarchy of Civil Procedure Law leads to too conservative, general and less operable regulations on suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial. Moreover, as its legal force is not mentioned, the supervision effect has no guarantee and Article 209 of Civil Procedure Law is used as the precondition of receiving cases of suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial, the supervision effect is discounted heavily.Chapter IV explores the legislation and system improvement of suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial. The author expounds the system improvement of suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial from four aspects: Legislatively, it is necessary to make clear the applicable scope of suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial and protest, so as to facilitate the organic connection of the two, grant procedure coercive force to suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial, and revise its receiving conditions. From the perspective of procedural normalization and design, it is required to form standard preparation, approval and delivery system of suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial at the procuratorial organ stage. Also, it is more necessary to design and formulate the examination and deliberation system of suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial at the court stage. To ensure the operation of suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial, we should build a sound and strict approval and decision system, establish a long-acting mechanism of the follow-up feedback and tracking and supervision for suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial, and set up a dispute settlement system of prosecutorial suggestions. In terms of improving the quality of suggestion from prosecutorial organizations for retrial, we need to introduce an investigation and verification system in a reasonable way, establish a public reasoning system of written suggestion from prosecutorial organs, build up a long-acting and unified legal instrument library and set up a scientific evaluation mechanism of suggestion from prosecutorial organs. As for building up a long-acting communication and coordination mechanism between court and procuratorate, we should establish a joint conference system, a retrial case tribunal system with the presence of chief procurator and measures for the implementation of countersign of court and procuratorate.更多还原