从“庭审必备”转向“庭审后备”——民事预判决制度之提出

From"Oral Hearing Indispensable"to"Oral Hearing Backup"--Proposal of Civil Pre-judgment System

我国民事诉讼法理论与实定法上存在着"庭审必备"的误解,即认为只有开庭审理才是法院审理,只有开庭后作出的判决才堪称正当。"庭审必备"的刚性规则是源于庭审范畴的不当扩张,这既淡化了庭审对抗辩论的实质功能,也使大部分的开庭空有形式。我国的判决程序应从以庭审为必要,转变为必要时庭审,对于简单案件采取预判决的机制:法官直接根据起诉与答辩作出预判决,如果当事人对预判决的实体结果没有实质异议,则预判决发生效力;如果法院认为当事人的异议使案件有庭审的必要,则进一步组织开庭审理。为保障当事人不受诉讼突袭,预判决之前双方当事人有发表意见的机会,但要求一次、及时提出;当事人有通过提出异议而请求庭审的权利,但不诚信的异议将受到惩罚。

There is a misunderstanding on the civil litigation in China that oral hearing is indispensable,in other words,it is believed that only oral hearing is the means of court hearing,and only a judgment that is made after oral hearing is just.The rigid rule of"oral hearing indispensable"is originated from the improper expansion of the meaning of oral hearing,which undermines the substantive function of oral hearing,i.e.adversarial debate,and also makes most of oral hearings valueless.The judgment procedure in China should be changed from that the oral hearing is indispensable to that the oral hearing is held only when it is necessary,and the pre-judgment mechanism should be adopted for simple cases.The judge directly renders pre-judgment according to the pleadings and the defenses,which becomes effective if parties have no substantive objection to the substantive result of the pre-judgment;if the court considers that the objection of a party makes it necessary to hold an oral hearing for the case,the oral hearing will be held.In order to protect parties from litigation surprise,both parties have the opportunity to express their opinions before the pre-judgment is rendered but both parties only have one opportunity and should express their opinions just in time.Both parties enjoy the right to request an oral hearing through objection,but they will be punished for dishonest objection.