“以审乱执”现象的制度成因及其治理——兼评《关于人民法院办理执行异议和复议案件若干问题的规定》第二十六条

The Institutional Cause of the Phenomenon of“Disturbing Enforcement with Trials”and Its Governance

根据正当程序保障下的自我归责原则,只有决定型生效法律文书认定的事实才能对参加诉讼或仲裁程序的当事人产生既判力或预决效力,申请执行人在案外人异议及执行异议之诉中不应受到另案生效法律文书的不利影响。但是,案外人将另案生效法律文书作为证明其对执行标的享有足以排除强制执行的民事权益的书面证据的,执行法院通常会根据强制执行形式化原则支持案外人的排除执行异议。被执行人与案外人恶意串通后通过虚假诉讼、虚假仲裁等方式骗取另案生效法律文书以逃避执行的现象时有发生。为有效治理“以审乱执”现象,有必要从解释论与立法论两个层面对《关于人民法院办理执行异议和复议案件若干问题的规定》第二十六条进行完善。

According to the principle of self liability under the guarantee of due process,only the facts identified in the legally effective adjudicative instrument can have res judicata or preliminary effect on the parties participating in the litigation or arbitration proceedings.Therefore,the applicant for enforcement shall not be adversely affected by the legally effective adjudicative instrument of another case in the case of the enforcement opposition.However,if the third party takes the legally effective adjudicative instrument of another case as the written evidence to prove that he or she enjoys the substantive right to prevent enforcement,the people’s court will usually uphold a non-party’s opposition to prevent enforcement according to formal enforcement principle.It occasionally happens that the party against whom enforcement is sought obtains an effective legal document by false litigation or false arbitration to disrupt the normal order of execution.In order to effectively deal with the phenomenon of“disturbance of execution by litigation or arbitration”,the provisions of Article 26 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning the Handling of Enforcement Opposition and Reconsideration Cases by People’s Courts should be improved from two aspects of interpretation and legislation.