近年来,对哪些“官司”要收费、按照什么标准收费、什么时候收费、用什么方式收费以及对收取的费用如何进行管理?是社会各界普遍关注的焦点问题。本文作者系资深法官,他结合长期的审判实践,在对建国以来有关法院诉讼收费制度的历史沿革进行全面回顾的基础上,对诉讼收费的现状及存在的问题和原因进行了深入的评析,阐述了制定、改革诉讼收费制度中应当坚持合法、合理、透明、规范原则,主张对于申请执行法院生效裁判的案件应当免收“申请执行的案件受理费”;法官的“差旅费”不应由当事人承担;“其他诉讼费用”和“执行中实际支出的费用”的收取必须公开透明;制定和调整收费范围和标准应当采取类似于行政听证程序的做法,杜绝暗箱操作;案件审理或者执行终结后,法院对预收的费用应当直接与当事人结算,不能为了自己方便或“旱涝保收”而将其推给当事人之间去“多退少补”,等等。据悉,作者的文章在去年最高人民法院组织的全国法院系统学术讨论上只获得了“三等奖”。按照法院惯例,学术讨论会的论文集只收录一、二等奖的成果,因此,作者的成果除了一纸“获奖证书”外,实际上一直没有“问世”。听说本刊就此焦点问题要组织专题讨论,作者谦虚地将其大作传真给本刊“斧正”。 In recent years, which “lawsuits” to charge fees, according to what the standard fees, when to charge fees, how to charge fees and how to manage fees? Is the focus of widespread concern in the community. The author, a senior judge, combined with long-term trial practice, conducted a comprehensive review of the historical evolution of the court-based fare collection system since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, and conducted an in-depth review of the current situation and existing problems and reasons of the litigation fare collection The formulation and reform of the lawsuit charging system should adhere to the principles of lawfulness, reasonableness, transparency and standardization, and advocate that “the case acceptance fee for application for execution” should be waived for the case of applying for the enforcement of the court judgment; the “travel expenses” of the judge should not be borne by the client ; “Other litigation costs” and “actual expenditures in the implementation of the” charges must be open and transparent; the formulation and adjustment of fees range and standards should be similar to the practice of administrative hearing procedures to eliminate the black-box operation; trial or execution of the case after the court The fees collected in advance shall be settled directly with the parties concerned and can not be pushed over to the parties for convenience or “drought and flood protection”, and so on. It is reported that the author’s article received only the “third prize” in the academic discussion of the national court system organized by the Supreme People’s Court last year. According to court practice, the proceedings of the symposium only include the results of the first and second prizes. Therefore, the author’s achievements have in fact not been “published” except for a piece of paper “award certificate.” I heard that we focus on this issue should organize a thematic discussion, the author modestly fax its publication to the magazine “ax.”