形式化原则下执行审查规则之检讨——从变更、追加当事人制度展开  

A Critique on the Rule of Enforcement Review under the Principle of Formality——Starting from the System of Variation and Addition of Parties

作　　者：占善刚[1] 张梁 ZHAN Shan-gang;ZHANG Liang(School of Law,Wuhan University,Wuhan Hubei 430072,China)

机构地区：[1]武汉大学法学院,湖北武汉430072

出　　处：《太原理工大学学报（社会科学版）》2024年第3期59-68,共10页Journal of Taiyuan University of Technology(Social Science Edition)

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地武汉大学环境法研究所课题重大项目“新时代生态文明建设司法保障与服务的完善研究”(22JJD820014)。

摘　　要：执行程序中被奉为圭臬的形式化原则,在实践中屡次出现理解与适用的偏差,导致执行审查流于完全书面审查。民事强制执行立法似乎未能充分考虑本土化执行体系的自洽性,转向与域外执行制度靠拢,实质作用可能式微。实际上,形式审查仍是围绕实体法律关系的审查方式,但在我国执行体系中需要相称的审查模式与救济手段辅佐才更具实效。作为关键的听证程序,理应从表征省略实质审理的略式程序出发,明确公益性、意思自治性的限制。同时,基于执行力主观范围扩张的正当性来源,结合实体法的具体规则是执行审查规则的题中应有之义。The principle of formality enshrined in enforcement procedures has repeatedly been misunderstood and misapplied in practice, which makes the enforcement review become completely written on paper. As civil enforcement legislation seems not to take into full consideration the self-consistency of the localized enforcement system and turns to converge with the extraterritorial enforcement system, its substantive role may fade away. In fact, the formal review still centers around the substantive legal relationship, which needs to be complemented by a commensurate mode of review and remedies to be more effective in Chinese enforcement system. As a key hearing procedure, the formal review should start from a sketch procedure of representation with substantive trial ommitted and clarity restrictions on public welfare and voluntary autonomy. At the same time, it is integrant to base the enforcement review on the source of justification for the expansion of the subjective scope of enforcement and to combine it with specific rules of substantive law.

关 键 词：执行审查权 变更、追加当事人 形式化原则 执行听证 略式程序 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学]