书证搜集裁判:模式比较与本土改造  

Ruling on Application for Documentary Evidence Collection: A Comparison of Modes

作　　者：曹志勋[1] 

机构地区：[1]北京大学法学院,北京100871

出　　处：《现代法学》2011年第5期151-160,共10页Modern Law Science

基　　金：2010年教育部人文社会科学研究规划基金项目"民事司法权优化配置研究"(10YJA820020)

摘　　要：引入两大法系共通的书证搜集裁判,有利于解决我国当事人提交书证能力不足的现实问题。在裁判模式上,大陆法系和美国在基本问题上达成共识,其书证搜集裁判的适用范围大致相似,并且裁判本身都在解决纠纷过程中发挥决定作用。在裁判效果上,妨碍书证搜集的一方应当在不同情况下分别于证据、事实、请求和程序层面承担不利后果。从现有制度出发,法院依申请取证制度应当引入比较法上书证类型的共识并且区分法官的裁判义务事项和自由裁量事项,同时从条件和过程两方面控制法官的裁量权,强调以裁判的形式加以保障。我国《证据规定》第75条正是书证搜集裁判的现行法基础,有必要重塑和细化其规范要件,并且建构层次清晰的裁判效果体系。Drawing experience from common law as well as civil law conduces to settling the problems here concerning parties＇ default in documentary evidence collection. As for the mode of ruling on the application for evidence collection and the effective extent of the ruling, two legal systems bear some similarity and the ruling per se takes effect in the process of dispute solution. In different context, the party who impedes documentary evidence collection shall bear the liability in respect of proof, fact, request and procedure. While ruling on evi- dence collection application, some foreign experience is advisable and matters concerning the court＇ s ruling duty and discretion must be clarified. Judges＇ discretion should be controlled from the aspects of requirements and procedures, which can be secured with emphasis of mode and formality of the ruling. Generally speaking, Rule 75 in the existing Evidence Rules has laid down a solid foundation of collection of documentary evidence with only some requirements to be re-provided and detailed.

关 键 词：书证搜集裁判 文书提出命令 证据开示 申请取证 证明妨碍 《民事诉讼 法》修改 

分 类 号：D924[政治法律—刑法学]