两种时效制度的嫁接及其法律功效

On the Combination of Two Prescription Systems and Its Legal Efficacy

人民法院审理案件是否应当主动适用诉讼时效制度,理论界存在争议,司法实践中做法不一。我国《民法通则》采纳胜诉权消灭主义,故在《民法通则》框架下,人民法院判案应主动适用诉讼时效制度的规定。但由于此种主动审查制度存在诸多弊端,最高人民法院发布的《民事诉讼时效规定》引进了抗辩权发生主义,明确规定人民法院不应主动适用诉讼时效之规定进行裁判。这实际上是对两种不同诉讼时效制度进行嫁接,其法律功效是胜诉权绝对消灭转变为胜诉权相对消灭,从而彰显了"唤醒和督促睡眠中的权利人及时行使权利"的法律价值观。

There are theoretical disputes and practical differences with regard to whether the people＇s courts shall actively apply the prescription system. The general principles of civil law of China adopted the doctrine of extinction of right to succeed in the action; therefore the people＇s courts should actively apply the limitation of action within the framework of the general principles of civil law. However, owing to several disadvantages of this active examination system, the Supreme People＇s Court enacted the ＂ Provisions on Several Issues concerning the Application of Statute of limitations during the Trial of Civil Cases＂ by which introduced the doctrine of occurrence of right to counterargument and explicitly prescribed that the people＇s courts shall not apply the limitation provisions actively. The situation is in fact a combination of two different prescription systems, of which the efficacy is the absolute extinction of right to succeed in the action changed into relative one and thereby expressed the legal value of ＂arouse and urge the sleeping obligees to duly exercise their rights＂.