论民事诉讼突袭性裁判的防止:以现代庭审理论的应用为中心  

The Prevention of Surprise Judgments in Civil Actions:On Orientation of Modern Trial Theory Application

作　　者：杨严炎[1] 

机构地区：[1]复旦大学法学院

出　　处：《中国法学》2016年第4期266-286,共21页China Legal Science

基　　金：国家社科基金一般项目"我国环境诉讼的模式选择与制度构建研究"(项目批准号:14BFX113)国家社科基金重点项目"建设高素质法律职业共同体的路径研究"(项目批准号:14AZD152)的阶段性成果

摘　　要：德日等大陆法系国家从民事诉讼法诞生之际就对突袭性裁判防止作出了规定,并在近一百多年来不断的强化。即便如此,突袭性裁判在德国仍被认为是司法之癌,可见其防范的难度和危害的严重性。对我国突袭性裁判的分析可以看出,其涉及范围和危害程度远超德日等国家。我国突袭性裁判的产生除与国外有大致相同的原因外,还有许多自己的特点,其中落后的庭审方式与不合理的考评制度是我国产生突袭性裁判的两大主因。争点不明的法庭调查使突袭性裁判大幅上升,不合理的案件评价制度又使许多错案难以得到纠正。突袭性裁判防止的路径,一是引入现代庭审理论,二是强化正当程序,使裁判产生正当化的效果。Germany, Japan and other civil law countries made regulations on surprise judgments when Civil Procedure Law was enacted, and has been intensifying them in the past nearly 100 years. Even so, the surprise judgment is still considered as the cancer of judiciary in Germany, which is the evidence of its serious harm and the difficulty to prevent it. From the analysis of China＇s surprise judgments, it can be seen that its severity and extent far more exceed the counterparts in other countries like Germany and Japan. Apart from the reasons roughly similar with other countries, the emergence of surprise judgments in China has lots of its own features, among which backward trail mode and unjustified assessment system are two major causes. Ambiguous court investigations sharply raise the rate of surprise judgments. In addition, unreasonable case evaluation system makes it difficult for rectification of many misjudged ease. To prevent surprise judgments, the first approach is to introduce modern trial theory; while the second is to strenzthen due process to strengthen due process to legitimate the judgment.

关 键 词：突袭性裁判 现代庭审理论 释明权 心证公开 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学]