民事诉讼的非法证据排除:理论廓清与规则检视  

Exclusion of Illegal Evidence in Civil Procedure:Theoretical Clarification and Rule Review

作　　者：占善刚[1] 张文浩 ZHAN Shangang;ZHANG Wenhao

机构地区：[1]武汉大学法学院

出　　处：《苏州大学学报(法学版)》2025年第1期1-13,共13页Journal of Soochow University:Law Edition

摘　　要：《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉的解释》第106条确立了民事诉讼领域的非法证据排除规则,反映出制度层面对于违法取证行为的规制坚守法秩序统一的理念。发端于刑事诉讼与英美法制的非法证据排除规则,并不契合我国民事诉讼程序的特质。民事审判实务中反映出该规则适用的诸多问题,结构性的举证困境倒逼争议取证行为频发,亟待通过重建理性规制方案予以回应。有别于第106条确立的“定性+定量限制”的单向逻辑,大陆法系国家和地区对于违法取证所得相关材料的证据能力委诸法院个案裁量认定,并以“阶段分析、双向权衡”的利益衡量作为法官评价证据能力的基本逻辑。此外,第106条还存在司法解释造法化、一元庭审构造与证据规则属性相冲突等问题,其对形式正义的追求,与我国民事司法政策的实质正义取向亦有所偏离。因此,在民事诉讼程序中规制违法取证行为不宜通过预设证据排除规则来完成,而应交由本案法官根据具体案件的实际情况对争议材料的证据能力作出个别性判断,并在此基础上独立认定违法取证当事人的行为责任。The exclusionary rule regarding illegally obtained evidence is enshrined in Article 106 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China,reflecting the concept of uniformity of legal order in the regulation of unlawful evidence-gathering behaviors at the institutional level.The exclusionary rule,which originates from from criminal procedure and Anglo-Saxon legal system,does not align with the distinctive nature of civil procedure.Numerous practical challenges in the application of this rule have emerged in judicial practice,notably the difficulty of adducing evidence when one party has obtained it through contentious means.There is an urgent need for a rational regulatory framework to address these issues.Regulations of the continental law system countries and regions often employ a discretionary,case-by-case approach and primarily rely on a balancing of interests,which follows a bidirectional logical relationship.This contrasts with the unidirectional approach outlined in Article 106.Furthermore,Article 106 presents problems such as the tension between legislative judicial interpretation and the unitary court structure,as well as the inherent conflict between rules of evidence and procedural attributes.The rule’s preference for formal justice also deviates from the consistent emphasis on substantive justice within China’s civil judicial policy.Regulations concerning the illicit procurement of evidence should adopt a case-by-case evaluation approach,assessing the responsibility for the behaviour independently.Presumptive exclusionary rules are,therefore,not suitable within the context of civil procedure.

关 键 词：一元法庭 证据规则 证据禁止 利益衡量 实质正义 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学]