我国民事管辖审查程序的反思与修正

Reflection and Revision of the Civil Jurisdiction Review Procedure in China

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属学者：

段文波

归属院系：

法学院

作者：

段文波

摘要：

对于管辖权审查,我国采用了立案庭前置审查为主,业务庭后置审查为辅的复式混合结构。由于原告和被告可以各自通过起诉与管辖权异议启动审查程序,这种审查启动权的时空错位导致了管辖权审查程序的割裂与繁复。基于司法政策考量设立的管辖权异议制度又进一步加剧了管辖权审查程序的繁杂性。而出于尊重当事人在管辖权方面意思自治所新设的应诉管辖制度,则因与复式混合审查构造无法衔接而近乎闲置。为使管辖审查程序更为简便高效、通畅协调,宜以单一后置审查模式取代复式混合审查构造,即仅由业务庭根据案情裁量开庭审寻双方当事人以增强程序保障,并增设非因错误而旨在避免迟延的移送。

语种：

中文

出版日期：

2019-08-09

学科：

诉讼法学

收录：

北大核心期刊; CSSCI; 中国科技核心期刊

提交日期：

2019-09-08

引用参考：

段文波. 我国民事管辖审查程序的反思与修正[J]. 中国法学,2019(04):186-206.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 我国民事管辖审查程序的反思与修正
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 段文波
  • dc.contributor.author
  • Duan Wenbo
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 西南政法大学;
  • dc.publisher
  • 中国法学
  • dc.publisher
  • China Legal Science
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2019
  • dc.identifier.issue
  • 04
  • dc.identifier.volume
  • No.210
  • dc.identifier.page
  • 186-206
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2019-08-09
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 复式混合审查;管辖权异议;应诉管辖;口头辩论;程序保障
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 对于管辖权审查,我国采用了立案庭前置审查为主,业务庭后置审查为辅的复式混合结构。由于原告和被告可以各自通过起诉与管辖权异议启动审查程序,这种审查启动权的时空错位导致了管辖权审查程序的割裂与繁复。基于司法政策考量设立的管辖权异议制度又进一步加剧了管辖权审查程序的繁杂性。而出于尊重当事人在管辖权方面意思自治所新设的应诉管辖制度,则因与复式混合审查构造无法衔接而近乎闲置。为使管辖审查程序更为简便高效、通畅协调,宜以单一后置审查模式取代复式混合审查构造,即仅由业务庭根据案情裁量开庭审寻双方当事人以增强程序保障,并增设非因错误而旨在避免迟延的移送。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • The jurisdiction review in China is under a compound mixture structure. It mainly concerns with the pre-posed review by the case-filing chamber, and takes the post-posed review by the trial chamber as a supplement. Due to the fact that both the plaintiff and defendant can initiate the review procedure through claim filing and jurisdiction objection, it may cause disorder on the time of the initiation, and thus causing the man-made disseverance and repetition of the jurisdiction review. The jurisdiction objection system established out of judicial policy aggravates the complexity of the review procedure. On the other hand, the forum prorogatum system newly established for the parties' autonomy of will is nearly left unused due to the link fracture between it and the jurisdiction review's compound mixture structure. In order to make the jurisdiction review simpler, more efficient and more convenient, it is better to replace the compound mixture structure with a single structure of post-posed review. To enhance procedure guarantee, only the trial chamber should under its discretion inquire the parties on jurisdiction through trial. In addition, the law should add a new jurisdiction transfer, not based on the mistake, but based on the avoidance of delay.
  • dc.identifier.CN
  • 11-1030/D
  • dc.identifier.issn
  • 1003-1707
  • dc.identifier.if
  • 7.038
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D925.1
回到顶部