论文部分内容阅读
人民法院审理案件是否应当主动适用诉讼时效制度,理论界存在争议,司法实践中做法不一。我国《民法通则》采纳胜诉权消灭主义,故在《民法通则》框架下,人民法院判案应主动适用诉讼时效制度的规定。但由于此种主动审查制度存在诸多弊端,最高人民法院发布的《民事诉讼时效规定》引进了抗辩权发生主义,明确规定人民法院不应主动适用诉讼时效之规定进行裁判。这实际上是对两种不同诉讼时效制度进行嫁接,其法律功效是胜诉权绝对消灭转变为胜诉权相对消灭,从而彰显了“唤醒和督促睡眠中的权利人及时行使权利”的法律价值观。
Whether people’s courts handle cases should take the initiative to apply the limitation of action system is controversial in theorists and there are different approaches in judicial practice. In our country, the “General Principles of Civil Law” adopts the principle of extinguishing the victory of the right of victories. Therefore, in the framework of the “General Principles of Civil Law,” the judgments of people’s courts should proactively apply the provisions of the limitation of action system. However, due to the drawbacks of this system of active censorship, the Supreme People’s Court has introduced the right of defense arising from the Provisions on Limitation of Civil Actions, which clearly stipulates that the people’s court should not take the initiative to apply the limitation of action for adjudication. This is actually the grafting of two different systems of limitation of action, whose legal effect is that the absolute elimination of the right to win is transformed into the relative elimination of the right to win, thus demonstrating the legal value of “waking up and urging right holders in their sleep to exercise their rights in a timely manner” .