请求权竞合诉讼的实践误区及规制路径

Practical Misunderstandings in Concurrence of Claims and Regulatory Approaches

实务中请求权竞合应对深陷误区,“择一而诉”或“择一消灭”模式均不足采。两种模式存在违背处分权主义要求、妨碍纠纷一次性解决、与受害者中心主义规范目的冲突以及与《民诉法解释》第247条矛盾等危害。对于请求权竞合问题的应对,实体维度与程序维度存在不同追求,前者着眼于对竞合的请求权之间的关系作出合理解释,后者着眼于一次性解决纠纷与避免双重给付判决。在请求权之间的关系问题上,依照《民法典》第186条进行解释只适宜采用请求权自由竞合说或请求权相互影响说。相应地,程序上必须通过诉的客观合并或诉讼标的概念的局部调整才能与以上理论适配。无论是“请求权自由竞合说+诉的客观合并”或“请求权相互影响说+诉讼标的概念的局部调整”,两种诉讼规制路径都能极大地缓解请求权竞合难题,避免“择一而诉”与“择一消灭”模式的消极后果。从实践贴合度与规制合理性两方面考虑,前者可以作为规制路径优化的近景目标,后者则可作为未来司法实践的努力方向。

We have many problems in handling the concurrence of claims. Neither the “alternative litigation” nor“alternative elimination” model is feasible in practice. They go against the requirements of the disposition doctrine,hinder effective settlement of disputes at one time, conflict with the victim-centered norm, and contradict Article 247 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law. From practical perspective, it is intended to present reasonable explanation to the relationship between competing claims. From the procedural perspective, it is intended to settle disputes at one time and to avoid double payment. On the issue of the relationship between claims, according to Article186 of the civil code, it is only suitable to adopt the theory of free concurrence of claims or the theory of mutual influence of claims. Accordingly,it is only through the objective combination of litigation and partial adjustment of the concept of litigation object that we can work in line with the above two theories. To address the problems in practice, it is advisable to adopt either of the two approaches, one is “free competition of claim rights + objective combination of litigation”, and the other is “mutual influence of claim rights + partial adjustment of the concept of litigation object”.Both approaches are feasible and effective in resolving problems in concurrence of claims, avoiding negative consequences of “alternative litigation” and “alternative elimination” modes. Considering feasibility and regulation rationality, the former can be taken as a short-term goal and the latter can be taken as the direction of judicial practice in the future.