论文部分内容阅读
法院依职权调查证据,是大陆法系以及源于大陆法系国家普遍通行的一种制度。我国民事诉讼法关于法院依职权收集和调查证据,经历了从全面地、客观地收集和调查证据,到当事人及其代理人因客观原因不能自行收集的证据,或者人民法院认为审理案件需要的证据,人民法院应当调查收集。从立法规定来看,法院的职权调查受到了限制,同时,也反映了一定程度上法制观念的变化。如何在确保法官中立和依职权调查证据中,架构合理的制度,通过比较和借鉴,应当明确法院是调查证据而非收集证据的主体,确立“调审分离”制度,严格规范证人出庭,从而保障司法公正和提高审判效率。
The court investigates the evidence on its excuse, which is a common system of civil law and civil law countries. The Civil Procedure Law of our country collects and investigates evidence on ex officio basis and has gone from collecting and investigating the evidence comprehensively and objectively to the evidence that the parties and their agents can not collect for objective reasons or the evidence that the people’s court considers the trial of the case requires , The people’s court should investigate and collect. Judging from the legislative provisions, the investigation of the court’s powers and functions has been restricted. At the same time, it also reflects the change of the concept of legal system to a certain extent. How to establish a system of “separation of trial from trial” and strictly regulate the witness appearance in court through a comparatively reasonable system of investigating the evidence of judges’ neutrality and ex officio investigation through comparison and reference should make it clear that the court is the subject of investigation rather than collection of evidence, Thus ensuring judicial fairness and improving trial efficiency.