关于诉讼时效几个问题的思考

Reflections on Several Problems Concerning Prescribed Period for Litigation

诉讼时效是我国民事法律制度的一个重要概念,它不同于除斥期间.我国现行民法对诉讼时效的各项内容有必要作进一步补充.其中,诉讼时效的开始以“权利主体能够行使请求权时”为起算点更为适宜;其中止情形应作扩大解释;诉讼时效多次中断的有效性不符合民事立法的真正目的,对中断次数应加以限制;诉讼时效延长的法定情形太笼统,不利于司法公正,应对“法院认为”的情形作出具体规定;诉讼时效纵容了侵权人的行为,这也正是其“后遗症.”

Prescribed period for litigation is an important aspect in the civil law system in our country, different from the period w'nen some right is supposed to exsist. The current civil law in our country needs to make a supplement to the contents of the prescribed period for litigation. For example, the beginning of the prescribed period for litigation is more suitable when the main body of rights can carry out the pleading right. Among them, terminating situation should be explained in a wider sense. The availability of prescribed period for litigation interruption for many times is not consistent with the real aim of civil lawmaking, so interrupting times should be restricted. The legal situation of the extension of prescribed period for litigation, which is too general and goes against the justice, is expected to make definite regulatioris for the situation the court judges. The prescribed period for litigaiton connives tortious actions, which is the sequelae.