热门站点| 世界资料网 | 专利资料网 | 世界资料网论坛
收藏本站| 设为首页| 首页

LAW OF SUCCESSION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

作者:法律资料网 时间:2024-07-22 03:33:37  浏览:9304   来源:法律资料网
下载地址: 点击此处下载

LAW OF SUCCESSION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA ——附加英文版

The National People's Congress


LAW OF SUCCESSION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

(Adopted at the Third Session of the Sixth National People's
Congress, promulgated by Order No. 24 of the President of the People's
Republic of China on April 10, 1985, and effective as of October 1, 1985)


Contents
Chapter I General Provisions
Chapter II Statutory Succession
Chapter III Testamentary Succession and Legacy
Chapter IV Disposition of the Estate
Chapter V Supplementary Provisions

Chapter I General Provisions
Article 1
This Law is enacted pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of the
People's Republic of China with a view to protecting the right of citizens
to inherit private property.
Article 2
Succession begins at the death of a citizen.
Article 3
Estate denotes the lawful property owned by a citizen personally at the
time of his death, which consists of:
(1) his income;
(2) his houses, savings and articles of everyday use;
(3) his forest trees, livestock and poultry;
(4) his cultural objects, books and reference materials;
(5) means of production lawfully owned by him;
(6) his property rights pertaining to copyright and patent rights; and (7)
his other lawful property.
Article 4
Personal benefits accruing from a contract entered into by an individual
are heritable in accordance with the provisions of this Law. Contracting
by an individual, if permitted by law to be continued by the successor,
shall be treated in accordance with the terms of the contract.
Article 5
Succession shall, after its opening, be handled in accordance with the
provisions of statutory succession; where a will exists, it shall be
handled in accordance with testamentary succession or as legacy; where
there is an agreement for legacy in return for support, the former shall
be handled in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
Article 6
The right to inheritance or legacy of a competent person shall be
exercised on his behalf by his statutory agent.
The right to inheritance or legacy of a person with limited capacity shall
be exercised on his behalf by his statutory agent or by such person
himself after obtaining the consent of his statutory agent.
Article 7
A successor shall be disinherited upon his commission of any one of the
following acts:
(1) intentional killing of the decedent;
(2) killing any other successor in fighting over the estate;
(3) a serious act of abandoning or maltreating the decedent; or
(4) a serious act of forging, tampering with or destroying the will.
Article 8
The time limit for institution of legal proceedings pertaining to disputes
over the right to inheritance is two years, counting from the day the
successor became or should have become aware of the violation of his right
to inheritance. No legal proceedings, however, may be instituted after the
expiration of a period of 20 years from the day succession began.

Chapter II Statutory Succession
Article 9
Males and females are equal in their right to inheritance.
Article 10
The estate of the decedent shall be inherited in the following order:
First in order: spouse, children, parents.
Second in order: brothers and sisters, paternal grandparents, maternal
grandparents. When succession opens, the successor(s) first in order
shall inherit to the exclusion of the successor(s) second in order. The
successor(s) second in order shall inherit in default of any successor
first in order.
The "children" referred to in this Law include legitimate children,
illegitimate children and adopted children, as well as step-children who
supported or were supported by the decedent.
The "parents" referred to in this Law include natural parents and adoptive
parents, as well as step-parents who supported or were supported by the
decedent.
The "brothers and sisters" referred to in this Law include blood brothers
and sisters, brothers and sisters of half blood, adopted brothers and
sisters, as well as step-brothers and step-sisters who supported or were
supported by the decedent.
Article 11
Where a decedent survived his child, the direct lineal descendants of the
predeceased child inherit in subrogation. Descendants who inherit in
subrogation generally shall take only the share of the estate their father
or mother was entitled to.
Article 12
Widowed daughters-in-law or sons-in-law who have made the predominant
contributions in maintaining their parents-in-law shall, in relationship
to their parents-in-law, be regarded as successors first in order.
Article 13
Successors same in order shall, in general, inherit in equal shares.
At the time of distributing the estate, due consideration shall be given
to successors who are unable to work and have special financial
difficulties.
At the time of distributing the estate, successors who have made the
predominant contributions in maintaining the decedent or have lived with
the decedent may be given a larger share.
At the time of distributing the estate, successors who had the ability and
were in a position to maintain the decedent but failed to fulfil their
duties shall be given no share or a smaller share of the estate.
Successors may take unequal shares if an agreement to that effect is
reached among them.
Article 14
An appropriate share of the estate may be given to a person, other than a
successor, who depended on the support of the decedent and who neither can
work nor has a source of income, or to a person, other than a successor,
who was largely responsible for supporting the decedent.
Article 15
Questions pertaining to succession should be dealt with through
consultation by and among the successors in the spirit of mutual
understanding and mutual accommodation, as well as of amity and unity. The
time and mode for partitioning the estate and the shares shall be decided
by the successors through consultation. If no agreement is reached through
consultation, they may apply to a People's Mediation Committee for
mediation or institute legal proceedings in a people's court.

Chapter III Testamentary Succession and Legacy
Article 16
A citizen may, by means of a will made in accordance with the provisions
of this Law, dispose of the property he owns and may appoint a
testamentary executor for the purpose. A citizen may, by making a will,
designate one or more of the statutory successors to inherit his personal
property.
A citizen may, by making a will, donate his personal property to the state
or a collective, or bequeath it to persons other than the statutory
successors.
Article 17
A notarial will is one made by a testator through a notary agency.
A testator-written will is one made in the testator's own handwriting and
signed by him, specifying the date of its making.
A will written on behalf of the testator shall be witnessed by two or more
witnesses, of whom one writes the will, dates it and signs it along with
the other witness or witnesses and with the testator.
A will made in the form of a sound-recording shall be witnessed by two or
more witnesses.
A testator may, in an emergency situation, make a nuncupative will, which
shall be witnessed by two or more witnesses. When the emergency situation
is over and if the testator is able to make a will in writing or in the
form of a sound-recording, the nuncupative will he has made shall be
invalidated.
Article 18
None of the following persons shall act as a witness of a will:
(1) persons with no capacity or with limited capacity;
(2) successors and legatees; or
(3) persons whose interests are related to those of the successors and
legatees.
Article 19
Reservation of a necessary portion of an estate shall be made in a will
for a successor who neither can work nor has a source of income.
Article 20
A testator may revoke or alter a will he previously made.
Where several wills that have been made conflict with one another in
content, the last one shall prevail.
A notarial will may not be revoked or altered by a testator-written will,
a will written on behalf of the testator, a will in the form of a sound-
recording or a nuncupative will.
Article 21
Where there are obligations attached to testamentary succession or legacy,
the successor or legatee shall perform them. Anyone who fails to perform
the obligations without proper reasons may, upon request by a relevant
organization or individual, entail nullification of his right to
inheritance by a people's court.
Article 22
Wills made by persons with no capacity or with limited capacity shall be
void. Wills shall manifest the genuine intention of the testators; those
made under duress or as a result of fraud shall be void.
Forged wills shall be void.
Where a will has been tampered with, the affected parts of it shall be
void.

Chapter IV Disposition of the Estate
Article 23
After the opening of succession, a successor who has knowledge of the
death should promptly notify the other successors and the testamentary
executor. If one of the successors knows about the death or if there is no
way to make the notification, the organization to which the decedent
belonged before his death or the residents' committee or villagers'
committee at his place of residence shall make the notification.
Article 24
Anyone who has in his possession the property of the decedent shall take
good care of such property and no one is allowed to misappropriate it or
contend for it.
Article 25
A successor who, after the opening of succession, disclaims inheritance
should make known his decision before the disposition of the estate. In
the absence of such an indication, he is deemed to have accepted the
inheritance.
A legatee should, within two months from the time he learns of the legacy,
make known whether he accepts it or disclaims it. In the absence of such
an indication within the specified period, he is deemed to have disclaimed
the legacy.
Article 26
If a decedent's estate is partitioned, half of the joint property acquired
by the spouses in the course of their matrimonial life shall, unless
otherwise agreed upon, be first allotted to the surviving spouse as his or
her own property; the remainder shall constitute the decedent's estate.
If the decedent's estate is a component part of the common property of his
family, that portion of the property belonging to the other members of the
family shall first be separated at the time of the partitioning of the
decedent's estate.
Article 27
Under any of the following circumstances, the part of the estate affected
shall be dealt with in accordance with statutory succession:
(1) where inheritance is disclaimed by a testamentary successor or the
legacy is disclaimed by a legatee;
(2) where a testamentary successor is disinherited;
(3) where a testamentary successor or legatee predeceases the testator;
(4) where an invalidated portion of the will involves part of the estate;
or
(5) where no disposition is made under the will for part of the estate.
Article 28
At the time of the partitioning of the estate, reservation shall be made
for the share of an unborn child. The share reserved shall, if the baby is
stillborn, be dealt with in accordance with statutory succession.
Article 29
The partitioning of a decedent's estate shall be conducted in a way
beneficial to the requirements of production and livelihood; it shall not
diminish the usefulness of the estate.
If the estate is unsuitable for partitioning, it may be disposed of by
such means as price evaluation, appropriate compensation or co-ownership.
Article 30
A surviving spouse who remarries is entitled to dispose of the property he
or she has inherited, subject to no interference by any other person.
Article 31
A citizen may enter into a legacy-support agreement with a person who, in
accordance with the agreement, assumes the duty to support the former in
his or her lifetime and attends to his or her interment after death, in
return for the right to legacy. A citizen may enter into a legacy-support
agreement with an organization under collective ownership which, in
accordance with the agreement, assumes the duty to support the former in
his or her lifetime and attends to his or her interment after death, in
return for the right to legacy.
Article 32
An estate which is left with neither a successor nor a legatee shall
belong to the state or, where the decedent was a member of an organization
under collective ownership before his or her death, to such an
organization.
Article 33
The successor to an estate shall pay all taxes and debts payable by the
decedent according to law, up to the actual value of such estate, unless
the successor pays voluntarily in excess of the limit.
The successor who disclaims inheritance assumes no responsibility for the
payment of taxes and debts payable by the decedent according to law.
Article 34
The carrying out of a legacy shall not affect the payment of taxes and
debts payable by the legator according to law.

Chapter V Supplementary Provisions
Article 35
The people's congress of a national autonomous area may, in accordance
with the principles of this Law and the actual practices of the local
nationality or nationalities with regard to property inheritance, enact
adaptive or supplementary provisions. Provisions made by autonomous
regions shall be reported to the Standing Committee of the National
People's Congress for the record. Provisions made by autonomous
prefectures or autonomous counties shall become effective after being
reported to and approved by the standing committee of the people's
congress of the relevant province or autonomous region and shall be
reported to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for
the record.
Article 36
For inheritance by a Chinese citizen of an estate outside the People's
Republic of China or of an estate of a foreigner within the People's
Republic of China, the law of the place of domicile of the decedent shall
apply in the case of movable property; in the case of immovable property,
the law of the place where the property is located shall apply. For
inheritance by a foreigner of an estate within the People's Republic of
China or of an estate of a Chinese citizen outside the People's Republic
of China, the law of the place of domicile of the decedent shall apply in
the case of movable property; in the case of immovable property, the law
of the place where the property is located shall apply. Where treaties or
agreements exist between the People's Republic of China and foreign
countries, matters of inheritance shall be handled in accordance with such
treaties or agreements.
Article 37
This Law shall go into effect as of October 1, 1985.

Important Notice:
This English document is coming from "LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA GOVERNING FOREIGN-RELATED MATTERS" (1991.7)
which is compiled by the Brueau of Legislative Affairs of the State
Council of the People's Republic of China, and is published by the China
Legal System Publishing House.
In case of discrepancy, the original version in Chinese shall prevail.

下载地址: 点击此处下载
对完善我国民事申请再审复查制度的思考

长春铁路运输法院  尚立福

人民法院对已经发生法律效力的民事判决、裁定,发现确有错误进行再次审理的程序,立法上称为民事审判监督程序。其实质是对发生法律效力但有错误的裁判进行再次审理,以期纠正原有错误的一种救济制度。它以已经发生法律效力的民事判决、裁定为对象,以民事判决、裁定确有错误为前提。是否确有错误,即是否具有再审事由,法院有一个发现和确认的过程。因此,民事审判监督程序实际上包括案件的申请再审复查和再审审理两个不同的阶段。民事申请再审复查制度是指人民法院根据当事人或者利害关系人的申请,对已经发生法律效力的裁判进行实质性审查,以确定再审申请是否具备法定的再审事由、是否应当提起再审的审判活动。复查主要是对当事人认为原裁判存在再审事由或其他法定条件而要求撤销原判、进行再审的主张进行审理;再审则主要就当事人各方对实体权利义务的争议进行审理。
民事申请再审复查制度是审判监督程序的重要组成部分,对保障公民诉讼权利和合法权益,实现司法公正,缓解社会矛盾,稳定社会秩序有重要作用。复查阶段就是对当事人的再审申请是否符合法律规定再审事由的审查阶段,是法官综合当事人的再审申请及生效裁判进行衡量的裁判阶段,是决定是否打开再审之门的关键环节,事关裁判的稳定和司法的权威,更关乎当事人合法权利的有效保障。申请再审复查制度担负着承上启下、分源截流的关键作用,是再审制度建设的核心环节,也是我国审判监督制度的关键。因此,从我国国情出发,从人权保障的角度,以当事人主义和以人为本的理念为基础,建立符合民事诉讼特征和审判规律的申请再审复查制度,是我国民事司法改革亟须完善的一项重要制度。
一、我国民事申请再审复查制度的现状与弊端
复查程序在我国民事再审制度中被法律真实确定是我国1982年《民事诉讼法(试行)》的规定,该法规定了当事人有“申诉”的权利,但这并非诉权。我国学者一般认为诉权是公民所享有的请求国家司法保护的权利,即纠纷主体将民事纠纷引入民事诉讼,请求法院行使审判权解决民事纠纷或保护民事权益的权利,诉权的行使引发民事诉讼程序启动的法律后果 。法院对当事人的申诉所涉及的生效裁判进行复查,该复查工作的性质为法院的审查立案行为,是一种带有行政化色彩的非规范化、非程序性的内部处理行为,法院根据当事人的申诉对生效裁判进行实质性审查,确定是否确有错误,并决定是否提起再审。由于这种复查制度是以国家公权力即监督权为基础建构的,而并非基于当事人的诉权,其性质为纠错程序而非维权程序,因此产生了完全职权化的复查过程,由法院对当事人的申请进行审查并决定是否提起再审,当事人的申请再审不能直接启动再审程序,该种申诉处理方式在司法实践中导致了日益严重的矛盾和弊端。
为解决这种矛盾,1991年修订后的《民事诉讼法》规定了当事人“申请再审”的权利,虽然“申请再审”与“申诉”并存于法条之中,但其与“申诉”具有质的区别,本质是一项诉讼权利,是当事人诉权在民事再审程序中的表现, 这项改动无疑是立法上的一个巨大的进步。我们可以把这种变动看成是试图在我国建立“再审之诉”制度。“再审之诉”是大陆法系国家的法律概念,指再审诉讼程序的提起直接基于当事人行使诉权的行为,法院以“诉讼程序”的方式审查当事人的再审之诉请求,即赋予当事人请求司法救济和接受司法裁判的诉讼权利,只要当事人申请再审并符合法定条件的则直接启动再审之诉程序 。多年来,在我国当事人的申诉是信息反馈引起复查及再审的主要渠道,故民诉法依然保留了“申诉”这一提法,同时规定了申诉再审的五种情形,也是基于这五种情形不能穷尽当事人申请再审的理由,最高人民法院的有关司法解释也没有排斥当事人申诉而提起再审的途径。从司法解释规定“人民法院接到当事人的再审申请后,应当进行审查”的内容理解,当事人的申请再审权利已经明确,但人民法院对此申请应当如何审查,没有明确程序规范。经过十多年的司法实践表明,现行民事诉讼法确定的当事人的申请再审诉权并未得到切实的保障和实现,甚至处于虚置的状态,申诉复查处于随意、草率、无序的“暗箱操作”之中,规范意义上的再审之诉制度尚未建立。随着我国法制的不断健全和发展,以及司法改革的不断深入,现行民事申请再审审查制度日益暴露出其弊端,阻碍了司法公正与效益,主要表现在:
(一)、严重损害司法权威与司法公正
“无威则无信,无信则不立”,司法权威是司法公正的前提和基础,可以说,没有司法权威,就没有司法公正。目前,司法权威有待提高是勿庸讳言的,现在种种对司法的责难很大程度上是因为司法缺乏权威。为什么那么多败诉者都上诉、申诉?就是他们不相信法院是公正的;为什么那么多人怀疑法官徇私枉法、贪赃枉法,而不考虑自己在纠纷中、诉讼中应承担的责任?也是因为大家不信任法院是公正的。原因是什么呢?屡屡见诸新闻媒体的司法腐败是罪魁祸首自不待言,现行民事申请再审制度的负面影响也是不可忽视的。没有司法权威,法律就让人感到不可靠,法律就得不到社会的尊重。德沃金指出:“使法律看起来不那么可靠,不那么公平,也会削弱社会对法律的尊重。如若没有这种尊重,法律,这一正常情况下引导社会和经济发展最有效力的手段,就将失去它对这一发展的影响。”失去了法律的影响、规范、引导作用的社会,怎么能建立法治社会?
权威来源于确定性,而不仅仅是正确性。在制度设计上,当前的自我否定性的民事再审制度就给人一种终审判决不确定的感觉,而在实践中申诉成功的个例无疑加重了对法院终审判决不确定的怀疑。其直接后遗症就是造成了社会民众对司法公正的怀疑,进而与司法腐败联系起来。司法是社会公正的最后一道防线,当这道防线不牢固时,民众对法律的信仰就会动摇。
(二)、终审裁判的稳定性和既判力受到削弱
诉讼程序具有一种特殊的稳定性,即一经走过就不得轻易回复,除非法律上做了特殊的安排,规定了除外的情形。在现实生活中,裁判文书生效后,当事人一方或双方不断地申诉,法院方面不断地再审复查,使已经确定下来的法律关系仍处于不稳定的状态。胜诉方不放心,败诉方不甘心。法律所调整的社会经济关系仍处于悬置状态,终审裁判的稳定性受到严重的威胁。法院的判决一旦作出后即产生当事人不得以通常程序,就该案再为争执,以维护法的安定性的效力,即“既判力”,既判力要求,除非法律上安排了特定的救济程序,依照诉讼程序作出的裁判一旦生效就被固定,不得轻易被推翻或改变。由于我国民事再审制度立法上的不严谨和司法上的滥用,造成了大量终审不终的现象,破坏了裁判的既判力,对当今社会的政治、经济和生活秩序带来负面影响不可避免。
(三)极大浪费司法资源、严重扰乱诉讼秩序
在司法实践中,由于民事审监制度的缺陷,出现部分案件历时十余年,先后判决、裁定十余次,当事人仍然四处申诉的现象。在这个过程中,法院有限的人力、物力、财力、精力被大量消耗,当事人在长期的诉讼过程中,也承受了巨大负担。现行的民事审监制度总是让当事人存有希望,而只要有一线希望,许多当事人就要不断申诉,一审、二审、再审,再再审……中院、省院,一直到最高院,在法院讨不到“说法”了,就到人大、政协,要不求助于新闻媒体,大肆炒作。反正申诉的门路很多,这里申诉完了到那里申诉。而法院在现行民事审监制度和当事人反复申诉的情况下,不得不一次次启动民事审查程序。这种无限申诉的民事再审制度使两审终审制度形同虚设,严重扰乱了诉讼秩序。
(四)法律的调节功能弱化
法律是社会关系的调节器。司法就是通过法律适用解决社会关系的矛盾和纠纷。在按照法律程序终审裁判后,纠纷各方的权利义务关系应因终审裁判而确定下来,以利于经济活动的继续运行。但是,我国民事再审复查及再审制度的最大弊端就在于不断的申诉、再审,使当事人之间的权利义务关系处于一种不确定状态,败诉的一方总是千方百计寻找各种途径将已经终审的判决推翻,而现行的民事再审复查制度恰恰为这种努力提供了各种各样的机会。法院终审判决的既判力受到了严重的威胁,而民事再审复查及再审之后的裁判结果仍必然存在败诉的一方(除少数的调解结案的以外,且不论调解的正当性),那么新的一轮申诉、再审就开始了,法律对社会关系的调节功能弱化了。
二、我国民事申请再审复查制度的症结
由于我国民事诉讼过于追求个案的绝对公正,无视生效裁判的稳定性、权威性,忽视诉讼的程序利益,导致民事申请再审程序任意性太大,在实践中的弊端日益暴露,分析原因,主要表现在以下几个方面:
(一)启动复查的主体过多
为防止或纠正错误的裁判,法律规定了可谓全方位的监督体系。当事人的申诉和申请再审可引发复查程序的启动,从司法部门内部来看,不但作生效裁判的法院可以主动对生效裁判进行复查,上级法院行使监督权,人民检察院行使监督权,这些部门都可以通过指令复查,检察建设而启动复查程序。从司法部门外部来看,地方各级党委、人大及有关部门的领导、人大代表往往以函件、建议函等方式要求法院对个案进行重点查办、督办,且案件数量越来越多,范围越来越广。应当承认,外部监督对于促进法院公正执法、维护当事人合法权益具有积极的作用,但由于外部监督的监督主体、形式的多元化,权限以及监督程序缺乏具体的规范,不可避免的产生了滥用监督权的现象。况且外部监督以提起再审的方式的进行,违背了民事诉讼“不告不理”和当事人处分权主义的基本原理,实际上侵害了当事人的再审诉权。
(二)管辖不明、层级混乱
现行民诉法第178条规定,当事人可以向原审人民法院或上一级人民法院申请再审。如此,原审法院及其所有上级法院均有权受理民事申请再审案件并进行复查,上级法院也有权指令原审法院进行再审或要求其复查并汇报结果。由于管辖规定缺乏特定性,导致实践中当事人越级申请再审、滥用申诉权利,扰乱了正常的诉讼秩序,加重了法院和社会的负担,而且也容易使各级法院对当事人的申诉或再审申请相互推诿,谁都有权管,谁都不管,反而陷入申诉或者投诉无门却又申诉不止的怪圈,结果一些错案不能依法得到纠正,确实需要救济的当事人合法的正当权利得不到司法程序的补救。
(三)、申诉期限规定较长,申诉次数无限制
时效性是程序公正的直接体现。任何诉讼都有时间限制,审判监督程序也应如此 。现行民诉法规定当事人申请再审的期限为二年,虽然改变了过去民诉法无限制的规定,但二年的申请期限仍过长,这与民诉法规定的当事人不服判决的上诉期十五天不相匹配,申诉与上诉相差太大,不利于裁判效力和民事法律关系的稳定。对于法院和检察院提起复查的,更没有期限限制,任何时间均可提出。此外,申诉次数未能限制性规定,加之启动复查和复查主体的多元化,致使众多的案件在各级法院反复复查。有的案件历时十余年,反复申诉,再审,使得法院生效裁判始终处于不稳定的状态,严重损害了社会对司法的信任,也造成诉讼和司法资源的极大学浪费。
(四)、复查的标准过于概括
复查审查的内容即为提起再审的实质条件,民事诉讼法第177条规定的“确有错误”标准、第179条规定的可提起再审的五种条件过于概括、原则,不够明确,缺乏可操作性。日本民诉法规定的再审理由有十种,与德国民诉法规定的大体相同,都是比较明确的。况且“确有错误”在理论上不符合民事诉讼的一般规律,缺乏科学性,由于当事人的申请并不必然引起再审程序的发生,因此这种“确有错误”显然不是当事人说了算的,使当事人常常与法官发生理解分歧而产生磨擦和冲突,同时也使法官在该标准的把握上有太大自由裁量权,容易形成法律外的寻租空间,滋生腐败。当事人频频申诉,“申诉状”漫天飞,导致本应再审的得不到法律上的救济,而不该再审的案件却被推翻原生效裁判,裁判稳定性、司法权威性受到了极大的威胁和损害。
(五)、复查方式的非规范化、非程序性
如前所述,复查是法院一种行政化的内部审查活动,而不是诉讼审理程序,处于不规范的状态,其过程是任意和不透明的,缺少程序性规范。对同一类型同一性质的案件,有的法院组成合议庭,对申诉和申请再审理由进行评判,决定驳回或裁定再审,有的法院则仅由审判员一人进行审查,决定驳回或汇报提出再审。有的复查案件能在极短的时间内裁定再审获得救济,而某些复查案件长期得不到解决。在复查方式上,基本采取不听证审查,不听取对方当事人的答辩意见,不组织双方质证、辩论,当事人基本没有机会发表自己的意见、提供证据等。复查过程缺乏当事人的参与程序,完全是法院独自进行的书面审查,复查结果的作出也不是基于双方当事人的陈述和辩论,随意性太大,违背了审判公开的司法原则,在实践中常导致先定后审,实际上为当事人正常的申请再审设置了行政管理障碍。所有的申诉、再审申请人都认为申诉、申请再审难,申诉、申请再审权得不到保障,尤其是被申请方对复查不公开很是不满,往往不知道案件已进入复查程序,认为案件复查透明度不高,暗箱操作现象严重 。这不仅严重侵害了当事人的诉讼权利,也有损司法的公正性。
(六)、复查环节与再审程序相分离
由于我国将复查作为法院对生效裁判决定是否再审的审查立案行为,因此即使一些法院将复查工作转入审监庭进行,但复查仍是法院审查生效裁判是否确有错误的阶段,由立案庭或审监庭的合议庭对再审申请进行实质审查,若认为案件存在民事诉讼法第179条规定的情形,则提交审委会研究决定,由院长提起再审程序。之后,转入立案庭重新立案,再分配给审监庭另行组成合议庭进行再审审理或指令下级法院进行再审。复查工作与其后的再审程序是两个性质截然不同、相互分离的环节,复查是完全独立的,有专门的合议庭审理、有独立的案由和案号,并形成独立成册的卷宗材料。这繁琐、曲折、反复审查的过程浪费了诸多的司法资源,且由于法官个体之间对案件事实、法律适用等方面的理解存在相当大的差异,司法实践常出现再审合议庭否定复查合议庭的意见,维持原判的情形,不仅白白浪费了有限的司法资源,也使当事人对如此左右摇摆的司法程序产生极大的不信任。
综上,现行民事再审复查制度并不符合建构再审之诉制度的要求,缺乏程序性,行政化的复查环节,未能充分保障双方当事人的参与,阻碍了当事人申请再审诉权的实现,降低了当事人对司法救济、司法公正的满意度,反而引发当事人缠诉不休的不正常后果。因此,为建立有限再审之诉制度,充分保障当事人的诉讼权利,完善我国民事申请再审复查制度势在必行。
三、我国民事申请再审复查制度的完善
马克思曾经指出:“审判程序和法的关系如此密切,就象植物的外形和植物的联系,动物的外形和血肉的联系一样。审判程序和法律具有同样的精神,因为审判程序只是法律的生命形式,因而也是法律的内部生命的表现。”实体法和程序法是互相依存,相辅相成,缺一不可的。实体法是程序法产生和存在的前提,程序法是实体法贯彻实施的保证方法和手段。民事诉讼程序制度的设立是为了解决平等主体间实体权益的纠纷。为此,作为民事诉讼程序制度下的民事申诉再审复查制度,必须具有民事诉讼程序特征并根据制度设立的目的,体现其应有价值和遵循一定的原则。复查程序是再审之诉的合法性审理程序,在对其进行制度建构和规则设计时,必须遵循民事诉讼意思自治、处分权主义的基本原则及一般规律,并且由于再审案件的特殊性,应充分考虑在确保裁判的终局性和确保原判认定事实、适用法律的真实性之间取得某种平衡。在建构再审之诉制度、完善复查制度的同时,必须对再审之诉的立案受理条件及审查方式进行相应的改革和完善。
(一)、树立“依法纠错”观念,改变“有错必纠”的司法理念
我国现行民诉法是根据实事求是、有错必纠的这一立法指导思想设计再审程序的,立法者鉴于民事审判监督程序是保障当事人实体权利的最后一道屏障,所以在该程序中更是尽力突出程序的工具价值,力图追求实体上的绝对公正,坚持“实事求事,有错必纠”的司法理念。这当然有其积极的一面,它重视保护当事人的实体权利,充分体现了实体公正,尤其强调了个案的实体公正,意使每一个案件都得到正确的处理,使每一个错案都得到彻底纠正,这无疑是项非常理想的司法原则。但我们不能一叶障目,从法哲学角度来分析,该司法理念对于民事审判来说,既不合适又不可能,并且危害很大。首先,体现了浓厚的职权主义色彩,不符合民事诉讼解决私人纠纷的目的,违背了民事诉讼的基本原则—处分原则。其次,有错必纠也是难以实现的,有错必纠原则建立在诉讼理想是追求客观真实的错误认识上,完全追求所谓的客观真实性在诉讼中是不能成就的,诉讼总要受到时间和空间的限制。况且,我们所要求的案件的客观事实又都是过去而非现在正在发生着的现象,证据所证明的事实无法与客观事实完全吻合。审判实践中法律事实往往与客观真实不尽相同。因此,有错必纠在司法实践中无法实现。最后,有错必纠原则导致既判力的弱化,严重损害了程序的安定性和诉讼公正。诉讼是根据国家审判作出公权性的法律判断,是以解决当事人之间的纠纷为目的,而终局判决正是这种判断。它不但拘束双方当事人服从该判决的内容,使之不得重复提出同一争执,同时作为国家机关的法院当然也必须尊重国家自己所作出的判决,这就是既判力。既判力是诉讼程序安定的重要保证、主要内容和必然要求。当事人已享受司法组织审理的司法保障,法官的判断会有差错,新的判断同样会有差错,所以最好的办法是,如果第一次判决是在所有合法的证据下作成的,就视为讼争已得到一次性的解决。通过比较法的考察,西方发达国家总是首先保证裁判的既判力,再审程序的启动只有在当事人在法定期限内以严格的事由申请再审情况下才能发生。因此,再审的案件很少。
就整体而言,有错必纠原则并无不当,问题是司法领域中的错误或者说司法错误,有其独特的衡量标准,将一般错误观念的标准强行作为司法错误的衡量准则,必然与现代司法价值理念发生冲突。现代司法的公平理念,只在于法律事实基础上的相对公平。现代司法效率的要求,亦绝不允许个案以任何理由无止境地拖延,迟到的正义也是不公正。案件只要是在合理的期限内,在双方平等、合理的诉讼权利背景下,在相对独立与中立的机构与人员主持下,依照法律约束力处理纠纷就应保障裁判结果的即判效力。若因当事人未能在合理期限内,未能正当行使诉讼权利的情形下,致使案件并未在完全客观真实的基础上得到公平了结,那么此等缘由绝不能用来冲击既定裁判的效力,更不能以所谓的有错必纠来横加干涉。再审工作必须贯彻依法纠错原则,这是有错必纠原则在司法程序中的具体体现。因此,以依法纠错替代有错必纠作为民事再审复查程序的司法理念,显得尤为重要。
(二)限制提起民事再审复查的主体
1、强化当事人的申诉权利
当事人对生效民事裁判不服,享有申诉的权利。但长期以来,当事人的申诉权一直得不到应有的对待,甚至受到漠视,当事人对此极为不满。根据现代司法理念应将当事人对生效裁判不服的申诉权利定位于再审之诉,即按照诉权的模式定位申诉权利。为此,合理设计当事人提请再审之诉的法律要件,规范法院按正当程序管辖、受理并审理再审之诉等环节,应成为修正民事再审程序予以重点关注的内容。应善待当事人的申诉权利,可以对当事人所有的申诉均实行立案复查,口头或书面答复当事人,符合再审立案条件的再审予以立案,不符合再审立案条件的予以驳回申诉。
2、弱化检察院的民事再审抗诉权
民事案件的特点在于它们都是私权利益争议的案件,赋予人民检察院对民事不受限制的广泛抗诉权力,使得人民检察院作为国家利益法律代表人的主体地位变得模糊起来。司法实践中,诸如人民检察院抗诉出庭的身份、调查取证的权力、抗诉与申诉以及申请再审的关系等,皆难以得到满意的解答。为此,应在完善民事再审程序中统一规定,人民检察院提出民事抗诉的案件,严格限制在生效裁判的结果危害到国家利益或者社会公共利益的范畴,减少抗诉案件的范围和数量,以便有利于民事诉讼“不告不理”、“处分”等原则落到实处。
3、取消法院依职权发动民事再审
法院自行决定启动再审程序,有违法院居中裁判的公正、公平的司法理念。理由是:法院依职权决定民事再审违背了不告不理的民事诉讼原则。因为法官在诉讼中的中立裁判角色决定其在启动程序方面只能是消极、被动的,否则,即与偏袒一方当事人无异。因为启动审判程序的当事人都是有诉须审的,与对方当事人是成对立关系的,所以法院在启动再审程序的同时也就丧失了中立裁判的立场,法院的公正性就会受到当事人的置疑。虽然再审程序的审判对象是由法院作出的裁判,但并不表明法院就有启动再审的连带责任,即使此举初衷可能是勇于自我纠错,但其实纯属多余。因为一个错误生效裁判的最直接受害者并不是法院,而是一方当事人,所以说,该当事人是最有可能发现错判而申请再审的。法院缺乏这种发现错判的利益相关之基础,所以不具有实效性,特别是在民事诉讼中,裁判的根本目的在于解决纠纷,而双方当事人也有可能为此互做让步,以至息讼服判。现法院单方为追求裁判的准确无误,再将双方当事人拖入诉讼之中,这样不仅违反了民事诉讼中的处分原则,也有悖于民事诉讼的目的。
(三) 、完善民事申请再审案件的审级规定
1、确定民事申请再审复查的管辖法院
现行的民诉法规定,民事申请再审可以由原审法院管辖。但是由于再审是重新审查和推翻原审法院作出的生效裁判,因此,由原审法院进行再审,就好比病人充当自己的医生,可能达不到预期的疗效。尤其是在原审法官有贪污受贿、徇私舞弊、枉法裁判行为时,原审法院再审,会尽力袒护其工作人员,回避由他们非法行为而引起的案件错误,这样的再审更会流于形式。因此,笔者认为应将再审案件提高一个审级,统一由原最终作出生效裁判文书法院的上一级法院审理(最高法院终审的案件不得进行再审)。这种管辖制度的实行,不仅能使当事人较易产生信赖心理,接受再审结果,而且也有利于上级法院监督下级法院的审判工作。这样基层法院可以集中有限人力、物力搞好一审案件。从与国际接轨来看,由较高级别的法院受理再审案件也和世界上多数国家的规定相一致。
2、取消指令民事再审复查
在司法实践中,上级法院发现可能提起民事再审的事由后,常常指令下级法院进行再审复查,让下一级人民法院向本院汇报复查情况,使得申请复查案件在二级法院之间长期处于不确定状态,浪费大量人力、物力、财力,严重损害当事人的利益,某种程度上加剧了当事人的上访。在确定了民事申请复查制度的管辖法院后,同时应当取消指令下级人民法院再审复查,这样由于指令再审复查而产生的各种弊端便迎刃而解了。

人事部关于博士后研究人员工资问题的通知

人事部


人事部关于博士后研究人员工资问题的通知
人事部


根据一九八五年七月五日《国务院批转国家科委、教育部、中国科学院关于试办博士后科研流动站报告的通知》(国发〔1985〕88号)的有关规定,博士后研究人员在博士后科研流动站工作期间的工资等福利待遇均应按国家正式职工对待。据反映,由于博士后研究人员属于流动
编制,一些设站单位在执行原劳动人事部《关于一九八七年解决部分中年专业技术人员工资问题的通知》(劳人薪〔1988〕4号)时,没能将博士后研究人员列入在编职工范围安排增资,产生一些矛盾。为此,特作如下通知:
一、各博士后科研流动站设站单位,可根据原劳动人事部劳人薪〔1988〕4号文件的精神,适当提高符合条件的博士后研究人员的工资。具体实施办法参照本地区本部门制定的实施办法执行。所需增资指标,可由设站单位报请主管部门解决,所需经费从博士后日常经费中列支。
二、贯彻原劳动人事部劳人薪〔1988〕4号文件工作已结束的设站单位,如博士后研究人员中确有符合文件规定而未增资的人员,应予以补办。
三、流动期满已出站工作的博士后研究人员,其增资应由接收单位按国家有关规定办理。
四、今后,凡国家安排提高专业技术人员工资,博士后研究人员均可比照同类人员,享有同样待遇。



1989年3月10日

版权声明:所有资料均为作者提供或网友推荐收集整理而来,仅供爱好者学习和研究使用,版权归原作者所有。
如本站内容有侵犯您的合法权益,请和我们取得联系,我们将立即改正或删除。
京ICP备14017250号-1