民事诉讼中的双重相关事实——“初步证据”向“假定为真”的转变

Double Relevant Facts in Civil Proceedings: The Transition from “Preliminary Evidence” to “Presumption of Truth”

同时体现为实体法上胜诉要件和程序法上诉讼要件的事实主张,在民事诉讼中具有特殊性。在我国普通民事审判和知识产权审判实务中,法院常常以初步证据作为管辖权异议阶段的审理标准。这一标准不同于实体审理中要求的初步证据,也因为其标准的模糊性而存在缺陷。与此不同,德国法上适用双重相关事实理论,通过将相关必然也成为实体胜诉要件的诉讼要件事实"假定为真",简化对此类事实的程序性判断,在其他法域中也存在类似思路。基于对被告利益的保护、对诉讼要件审查原理的重视和对不同方案下程序效果的比较,我国有必要由初步证据标准转向假定为真方案。结合比较法经验与我国法传统,我国应当完善假定为真方案下的制度设计与程序配套。

Factual allegations, which are essential for both the substantive success and procedural requirements of a civil case, have particularity in civil process. In the trial of ordinary civil cases and intellectual property cases, courts often take the test of preliminary evidence as the trial criterion in the procedural phase of jurisdictional objection. Different from the preliminary evidence required in substantive trial, this criterion is defective because of its ambiguity. In comparison, the German law tends to adopt a theory of double relevant facts. This theory simplifies the procedural determination of relevant facts by presuming them to be true during the review of procedural preconditions of the civil litigation. Similar approaches have also been adopted in other jurisdictions. The protection of the defendant’s interests, the emphasis on procedural preconditions and the comparison between the procedural effects of different tests all call for a shift from preliminary evidences to the presumption of truth under Chinese law. China should improve the institutional design of presumption of truth and the supporting procedures in light of foreign experience and its own legal tradition.