淺析民事訴訟非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則
發(fā)布時間：2019-04-16 14:49
【摘要】：隨著社會大眾以訴訟方式來救濟自身權(quán)益的觀念加強，“打官司就是打證據(jù)”的訴訟理念也逐漸深入人心。①為了達到訴訟目的，使權(quán)益得到救濟，當(dāng)事人及其訴訟代理人往往會竭盡所能，采用各種各樣的方式取證，其中也不乏采用不符合法律規(guī)定的方式，如在司法實踐中較為常見的偷拍偷錄、陷阱取證、懸賞取證等方式。雖然當(dāng)事人及其訴訟代理人采取非法手段獲取證據(jù)的行為不符合法律的規(guī)定，但非法證據(jù)對于發(fā)現(xiàn)案件的真實情況往往具有不可替代的作用，如果對民事訴訟中的非法證據(jù)不加辨別、籠統(tǒng)地進行排除，將造成無法查明案件事實的后果，這會極大的傷害實體正義。然而，如果發(fā)現(xiàn)案件真實情況的方式嚴(yán)重侵害法律所保護的權(quán)益、違反法律的禁止性規(guī)定，也是不能得到法律支持的。目前，在我國的法律體系中關(guān)于民事訴訟非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的規(guī)定非常少，當(dāng)事人及其訴訟代理人的取證行為不能得到法律的有效指引和規(guī)制，其非法取得的證據(jù)在司法實踐中也難以認定。最高人民法院針對司法實踐中存在的問題作出了司法解釋，，規(guī)定“以侵害他人合法權(quán)益或者違反法律禁止性規(guī)定的方法取得的證據(jù)，不能作為認定案件事實的依據(jù)”。但是，司法解釋的內(nèi)容過于簡單、籠統(tǒng)，其對于“侵犯他人合法權(quán)益”和“違反法律禁止性規(guī)定”在司法實踐中應(yīng)當(dāng)如何認定，是否將非法證據(jù)一概排除在民事訴訟之外等關(guān)鍵性的問題沒有作出說明。這些問題在理論界和司法實踐中仍然存在著爭議和分歧，造成司法實踐當(dāng)中法官的自由裁量權(quán)過大，對于非法證據(jù)排除的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不統(tǒng)一，傷害司法公信力。民事訴訟非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則對于規(guī)范當(dāng)事人及其訴訟代理人的取證行為，平衡發(fā)現(xiàn)真實與保護公民基本權(quán)利、維護程序正義之間的價值具有十分重要的意義，因此對該項證據(jù)規(guī)則進行探討研究是非常有必要的。 本文在查閱國內(nèi)外有關(guān)民事訴訟非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則相關(guān)資料的基礎(chǔ)上，結(jié)合目前我國的司法實踐情況，針對我國民事訴訟非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則存在的缺陷，提出了在權(quán)衡各項利益的基礎(chǔ)之上確立明確、具體、可操作性強的非法證據(jù)排除標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，明確非法證據(jù)的證明主體，明確非法證據(jù)的排除階段，合理限制法官的自由裁量權(quán)等幾項建議。
[Abstract]:With the strengthening of the idea that the public use litigation to remedy their rights and interests, the idea of "litigation is evidence" has gradually taken root in the hearts of the people. (1) in order to achieve the purpose of litigation, the rights and interests can be remedied. The parties and their litigant representatives often try their best to obtain evidence in a variety of ways, many of them in ways that do not meet the requirements of the law, such as the more common practice of taking videotapes and traps in judicial practice. Offer a reward for evidence, etc. Although the act of obtaining evidence by illegal means by the parties and their litigants is not in conformity with the provisions of the law, illegal evidence often plays an irreplaceable role in discovering the true circumstances of the case, If the illegal evidence in civil action is not distinguished and excluded in a general way, it will result in the consequence that the facts of the case cannot be ascertained, which will greatly harm the substantive justice. However, if the way of finding out the true situation of the case seriously infringes the rights and interests protected by the law and violates the prohibitions of the law, it cannot be supported by the law. At present, in the legal system of our country, there are very few provisions on the rule of excluding illegal evidence in civil litigation, and the act of obtaining evidence by the parties and their litigant agents cannot be effectively guided and regulated by the law. The evidence obtained illegally is also difficult to confirm in judicial practice. The Supreme people's Court has made a judicial interpretation of the problems existing in judicial practice, stipulating that "evidence obtained by means of violating the lawful rights and interests of others or violating the prohibitions of the law cannot be used as a basis for determining the facts of the case". However, the content of judicial interpretation is too simple and general. How should it be determined in judicial practice for "violating the legitimate rights and interests of others" and "violating the prohibitions of the law"? Key issues, such as whether to exclude all illegal evidence from civil proceedings, were not explained. These problems still exist disputes and differences in the theoretical and judicial practice, resulting in the judge's discretion in judicial practice is too large, the standards for the exclusion of illegal evidence are not uniform, and harm the credibility of the judiciary. The rule of excluding illegal evidence in civil litigation is of great significance for standardizing the evidence-taking behavior of the parties and their litigant agents, balancing the discovery of truth and protecting the fundamental rights of citizens, and safeguarding the value of procedural justice. Therefore, it is necessary to study the rules of evidence. On the basis of consulting the relevant information about the rule of excluding illegal evidence in civil litigation at home and abroad, and combining with the current judicial practice in our country, this paper aims at the defects of the rule of excluding illegal evidence in civil litigation in our country. On the basis of weighing various interests, the author puts forward to establish a clear, specific and maneuverable exclusionary standard of illegal evidence, to clarify the subject of proof of illegal evidence, and to clarify the exclusion stage of illegal evidence. Several suggestions, such as a reasonable restriction on the discretion of the judge.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.1
本文編號：2458865
[Abstract]:With the strengthening of the idea that the public use litigation to remedy their rights and interests, the idea of "litigation is evidence" has gradually taken root in the hearts of the people. (1) in order to achieve the purpose of litigation, the rights and interests can be remedied. The parties and their litigant representatives often try their best to obtain evidence in a variety of ways, many of them in ways that do not meet the requirements of the law, such as the more common practice of taking videotapes and traps in judicial practice. Offer a reward for evidence, etc. Although the act of obtaining evidence by illegal means by the parties and their litigants is not in conformity with the provisions of the law, illegal evidence often plays an irreplaceable role in discovering the true circumstances of the case, If the illegal evidence in civil action is not distinguished and excluded in a general way, it will result in the consequence that the facts of the case cannot be ascertained, which will greatly harm the substantive justice. However, if the way of finding out the true situation of the case seriously infringes the rights and interests protected by the law and violates the prohibitions of the law, it cannot be supported by the law. At present, in the legal system of our country, there are very few provisions on the rule of excluding illegal evidence in civil litigation, and the act of obtaining evidence by the parties and their litigant agents cannot be effectively guided and regulated by the law. The evidence obtained illegally is also difficult to confirm in judicial practice. The Supreme people's Court has made a judicial interpretation of the problems existing in judicial practice, stipulating that "evidence obtained by means of violating the lawful rights and interests of others or violating the prohibitions of the law cannot be used as a basis for determining the facts of the case". However, the content of judicial interpretation is too simple and general. How should it be determined in judicial practice for "violating the legitimate rights and interests of others" and "violating the prohibitions of the law"? Key issues, such as whether to exclude all illegal evidence from civil proceedings, were not explained. These problems still exist disputes and differences in the theoretical and judicial practice, resulting in the judge's discretion in judicial practice is too large, the standards for the exclusion of illegal evidence are not uniform, and harm the credibility of the judiciary. The rule of excluding illegal evidence in civil litigation is of great significance for standardizing the evidence-taking behavior of the parties and their litigant agents, balancing the discovery of truth and protecting the fundamental rights of citizens, and safeguarding the value of procedural justice. Therefore, it is necessary to study the rules of evidence. On the basis of consulting the relevant information about the rule of excluding illegal evidence in civil litigation at home and abroad, and combining with the current judicial practice in our country, this paper aims at the defects of the rule of excluding illegal evidence in civil litigation in our country. On the basis of weighing various interests, the author puts forward to establish a clear, specific and maneuverable exclusionary standard of illegal evidence, to clarify the subject of proof of illegal evidence, and to clarify the exclusion stage of illegal evidence. Several suggestions, such as a reasonable restriction on the discretion of the judge.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.1
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條
1 李浩;民事訴訟非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則探析[J];法學(xué)評論;2002年06期
2 霍建平;;論民事訴訟非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的適用[J];廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2009年01期
3 李浩;;民事訴訟非法證據(jù)的排除[J];法學(xué)研究;2006年03期
4 羅飛云;;論民事訴訟中的非法證據(jù)[J];寧夏社會科學(xué);2011年05期
5 葉自強;;論程序法的獨特價值[J];訴訟法論叢;2000年01期
6 張永泉;論我國訴訟中的證據(jù)排除與證據(jù)禁止[J];政法學(xué)刊;2001年03期
7 李祖軍;;論民事訴訟非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則[J];中國法學(xué);2006年03期
8 陳桂明;計格非;;民事訴訟證據(jù)合法性的重新解讀[J];國家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報;2005年02期
本文編號：2458865
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/susongfa/2458865.html
