论文部分内容阅读
人民法院的司法实践表明,不方便法院原则的适用较为混乱,导致诸多问题如产生司法沙文主义的嫌疑、弱化不方便法院原则减少诉累的功能、难以妥善解决平行诉讼与判决不一致。上述问题的根源在于,关于不方便法院原则适用的司法解释误解了不方便法院原则的本质内涵。适用不方便法院原则的要旨在于,确定平等保护当事人利益并实现个案公正的法院,而非认定审理案件更为方便的法院。在不方便法院原则的适用方面,应以“两阶段说”取代相关司法解释采用的“六条件说”。这既有助于回归不方便法院原则的本质内涵,又有助于解决“六条件说”产生的多重弊端。
The judicial practice of the people’s court shows that the application of the principle of inconvenient courts is rather chaotic, causing many problems such as the suspicion of judicial chauvinism and weakening the inconvenient functions of court to reduce the burden of complaint. It is difficult to properly resolve the discrepancies between parallel lawsuits and judgments. The root of the above problem is that the judicial interpretation applicable to the principle of non-convenience courts has misunderstood the essential connotation of the principle of non-convenience courts. The gist of the principle of non-convenience courts lies in determining the courts that fairly protect the interests of the parties and achieve a fair case, rather than the courts that find it easier to hear the case. In applying the principle of forum inconvenience, the “six conditions” adopted by relevant judicial interpretations should be replaced by “two-stage theory”. This not only helps to return to the essence of the principle of inconvenience courts, but also helps to solve the multiple drawbacks arising from the “six conditions”.