民事实体性再审事由与法院诉讼责任范围  

Substantial Particulars for the Retrial of Civil Lawsuits and Litigating Responsibility of the Court

作　　者：郑金玉[1] 

机构地区：[1]河南大学环境与民商法研究所,河南开封475001

出　　处：《河南大学学报（社会科学版）》2011年第3期61-68,共8页Journal of Henan University(Social Sciences）

基　　金：2009年度国家社会科学基金项目"诉权的法哲学研究--基于和谐社会中公民权利保障的视角"(09CFX004)阶段性成果;2008年度河南省教育厅人文社会科学项目"民事再审事由程序功能解析"(2008-GH-030)阶段性成果

摘　　要：因法官认识局限而导致的裁判错误或其他不当诉讼行为,在性质上不同于枉法裁判。针对此类行为,应在划清诉讼责任范围的基础上强化审判主体程序内的诉讼责任,尽量避免在程序外追究法官个人责任,这对减轻裁判压力和规范诉讼行为具有明显的现实意义。《民事诉讼法》细化了再审事由,具备划分诉讼责任范围的功能。在实体再审事由中,事实性事由强调了法院的裁判责任:裁判者应对其选择事实认定方案的恰当性负责,但原则上不承担查明事实的责任;诉讼请求性事由强调了法院被动裁判原则,诉讼请求实体内容的恰当性不属于法院负责的事项,但裁判者仍需主动地探明诉讼标的(诉讼请求)的程序要件,以保证审判权运行的正当性。Wrong Verdicts or other inadequate acts of litigation resulting from the judges＇ misunderstanding are in nature different from those from illegitimate exercise of their judicial power.The solution to this problem is that the judges＇ responsibilities should be elucidated on the basis of clarifying the scope of their responsibility.In reality,it is significant not to affix personal,non-procedural responsibility for the judges and thus diminish the pressure on them and standardize judicial procedures.Specifying the particulars for retrial,Civil Law defines the scope of litigating responsibility.Of substantial particulars for retrial,those resulting from facts are attributed to the judges： the judges are supposed to be responsible for choosing an adequate way of finding facts but not for finding facts.Particulars of litigation requests stress the principle of passive judgment of the court.Though the court is not supposed to be responsible for the adequacy of substantial content of litigation requests,the judges should take the initiative to make themselves clear about the components of litigation requests to guarantee the legitimate exercise of judicial power.

关 键 词：民事实体性再审事由 诉讼责任 事实性再审事由 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学]