实体法与程序法相辅相成——法释[2016]5号之解读、评论与升华

The Complementary Relationship between Substantial Law and Procedural Law: Explanations,Comments and Abstract to the SPC's Judicial Interpretation [2016]No.5

法释[2016]5号第1条关于民事审判庭与行政审判庭不得相互推诿的规定,突破了孤立主义与封闭主义的藩篱,为了便民和效率而转换逻辑,具有启发性。第2条所谓证据因需要确定的物权及其形成原因的不同而不同,其寻觅和确定受制于实体法和程序法。第4条没有扩展预告登记的客体范围,未就预告登记的权利人在两种情况下是否享有优先于其他权利人的权利表态,这构成不足。不过,预告登记制度值得称道之处在于,它不但彰显了程序正义,而且确保了实质正义。这与有些领域虽有程序正义但无法确保实质正义的情形不同。第5条有得有失,其失在于受让人能否对抗转让人的债权人的规则没有结合《物权法》第106条第1款、第230条以及法释[2012]8号第10条第2款的规定予以设计,适用范围过宽。第9条得以形成的重要源泉是意思自治、伦理价值,但这并不意味着程序法毫无作为,同等条件的形成及其机制就属于程序制度,它也是继承、遗赠场合排除优先购买权行使的原因之一。第11条第2-4项的可资赞同,但第1项的规定却忽视了优先购买权人接到通知后思考、决断是否购买所必需的时间。如果通知中载明行使优先购买权的期间过短,不合交易习惯,不合情理,就不宜以通知中载明优先购买权的行使期间为准。

The Article 1 of the SPC＇s Judicial Interpretation [2016]No. 5 provides that the civil tribunals in the People ＇s Court and the administrative tribunals should not transfer the cases to the other,breaking though the fences of isolationism,and changing the mind in order to facilitate the citizen and promote the efficiency,which has a great inspiration to us all. The Article 2 deals with the evidence,which depends on the real rights needed to determine and on the cause of its acquirement,and its finding and determination depends also on the substantial law as well as the procedural law. The Article 4,neither extending the objective field of the priority notice（ Vormerkung）,nor illustrating whether the right owner of priority notice under the two cases has the priority to the other right owners,falls in the short. The Article 5 has both gains and loses. The loses lie in that,the rules that whether consignee can defend the consigner＇s creditor did not combine with the Article 106 sub-article 1,Article 230 and Article 10 sub-article 2 of SPC＇s Judicial Interpretation [2016]No. 8,therefore its scope of application is too wide. Article 9 is based on the autonomy of will and the moral value,which does not mean that the procedural rules have no use. To form the same condition and its mechanism belongs to procedural system. As for the Section 2-4,Article 11,I agree with it,but Section 1 neglects to give a necessary time to make decision for the prior purchaser after he / she receives the notice. If the notice stipulates a unreasonable short period,it should not be valid.