论中国民事案件诉讼费用预交制度的立法修正
On the Legislative Amendment of the Prepayment System of Litigation Costs in Civil Cases in China
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
建国后,中国的诉讼费用制度先后经历了无偿裁判、个别收费及普遍收费三个阶段. 在民事诉讼中,当事人起诉时原则上要预交诉讼费用,最终根据裁判结果,确定诉讼费用的负担. 现行诉讼费用预交、退费制度,存在多个当事人交费和法院退费的节点,无形中增加了当事人诉讼成本及法院的司法成本. 司法救助范围的狭窄,给法人组织,尤其是民营企业依法行使诉权造成了困难,影响了诉讼程序的进行. 同时,中国民事案件诉讼费用的相关规定存在着可操作性差,费率过高等问题. 因此,有必要对诉讼费用预交制度进行适当的立法修正,建立诉后交纳制度. 这一制度与“受益者分担”原理是一脉相承的,同样会发挥制裁民事违法行为,减少纳税人负担和国家财政开支的功能,有助于进一步保护当事人的诉权,为民营经济发展提供更加有力的司法服务和保障,有助于人民法院节约人力资源. 这一制度,是将征收诉讼费用的节点推迟到结案之后,而不是推动不收取诉讼费用,不会造成诉讼费用的流失. 这一制度,仍然会要求当事人考虑诉讼的必要性,不会必然导致当事人滥用诉权. 诚然,该制度在运行过程中,人民法院要充分履行释明义务,告知当事人的诉讼风险,告知当事人诉后仍需要根据裁判结果交纳诉讼费用,而非不交纳诉讼费用. 同时,为了防止对中国国家主权和经济利益造成负面的影响,对于涉外民商事纠纷的原告为外国公民、企业或者组织时,仍然实行诉讼费用预交制度.
Abstract
After the founding of the People's Republic of China, China's litigation cost system has gone through three stages: free judgment, individual charge and universal charge. In civil action, litigant should pay lawsuit cost in advance when they sue, and then the final actual cost of lawsuit should be decided based on the adjudicates result. The current system of pre-payment and refund of litigation costs has multiple nodes of payment by parties and refund by courts, which virtually increases the litigation costs of parties and judicial costs of courts. The narrow scope of judicial assistance makes it difficult for legal person organizations, especially private enterprises, to exercise their litigation rights in accordance with the law and affects the proceeding of litigation procedures. At the same time, the related provision of civil litigation expenses system is inefficient and rate of litigation cost is very high. Therefore, it is necessary to make appropriate legislative amendments to the system of pre-payment of litigation costs and establish a post-litigation payment system. This system is in the same line with the principle of “beneficiary sharing”, and it will also play the role of sanctifying civil illegal ACTS and reducing the burden of taxpayers and state financial expenditure. It helps to protect the litigant's right of action and save human resources, and will provide more powerful judicial services and guarantee for the development of private economy. This system is to defer the collection of litigation costs to the end of the case, rather than promote the non-collection of litigation costs, which will not cause the loss of litigation costs. This system, still requiring the parties to consider the necessity of litigation, will not necessarily lead to the abuse of litigation parties. Admittedly, in the process of operation of this system, the people's court should fully fulfill the obligation of interpretation by informing the parties of the litigation risk and that they still need to pay the litigation costs according to the judgment results after the litigation, rather than not to pay the litigation costs. At the same time, in order to prevent negative impact on China's national sovereignty and economic interests, when the plaintiff in civil and commercial disputes involving foreign nationals is a foreign citizen, enterprise or organization, the system of advance payment of litigation expenses shall still be implemented.
참고문헌 (9)
- 江伟, "民事诉讼法" (2015), 中国人民大学出版社
- 廖永安, "诉讼费用研究-以当事人诉权保护胃分析视角" (2006), 中国政法学出版社
- 肖建国, "民事诉讼程序价值论" (2000), 中国人民大学出版社
- 廖永安, "论民事诉讼费用的性质与征收依据", 政法论坛, (5) (2003)
- 廖永安, "诉讼费用交纳办法之检讨", 法商研究, (2) (2008)
- 方流芳, "法院收费制度考", 中国社会科学, (3) (1999)
- "智慧法院 像网店一样方便" (2018)[URL]
- 周成泓, "美国诉讼费用制度及其对我国的启示", 法律适用, (3) (2006)
- 汤唯建, "诉讼费用法立法研究", 江苏大学学报(哲学社会科学版), (3) (2017)
