论文部分内容阅读
最高人民法院《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》第35条规定:“诉讼过程中,当事人主张的法律关系的性质或民事行为的效力与人民法院根据案件事实作出的认定不一致的,不受本规定第34条规定的限制,人民法院应当告知当事人可以变更诉讼请求。”这是我国立法中第一次明确、清晰地提出法官具有释明权。然而在我国民事诉讼法中却没有相关的规定,总体来说相关理论研究和指导非常贫乏。释明权作为保障实体公正,提高诉讼效率的重要手段,在西方国家特别是德国和日本都有明确的规定,发挥法官的释明权对平衡当事人的诉讼能力以实现真正的平等对抗是非常必要的。为此,本文借鉴国外成功之经验弥补我国立法之不足,对我国释明权制度进行了初步的探索。
Article 35 of the Supreme People’s Court’s “Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Actions” stipulates: “In the course of proceedings, the nature of the legal relationship claimed by the parties or the validity of civil acts is inconsistent with the determination made by the people’s court on the facts of the case, Article 34 stipulates the restrictions, the people’s court should inform the parties can change the claims. ”This is the first time in our legislation clearly and clearly put forward the judge has the power of interpretation. However, there are no relevant provisions in the Civil Procedure Law of our country. Generally speaking, relevant theoretical research and guidance are very scarce. As an important means to ensure the fairness of the entity and improve the efficiency of litigation, the right of interpretation is clearly stipulated in western countries, especially Germany and Japan. It is necessary to exert the judicial power of interpretation to balance the parties’ litigation ability to achieve true equal antagonism of. Therefore, this article draws lessons from the successful experience of foreign countries to make up for the lack of legislation in our country and makes a preliminary exploration of the system of the right of interpretation in our country.