阅核制述评

Commentary on the Supervision and Administration System

当前法院系统所推行的阅核制本质上仍然是院庭长行使审判监督、管理权的一种形式,差别在于其在司法责任制改革的“四类案件”外,还覆盖了原本属于独任法官和合议庭“自留地”的“非四类案件”。阅核在形式上虽然仍属文书签发制,却只是一项程序启动权,而非实体处分权,因此并非个案审批制的翻版。从改革背景看,阅核制的出台主要是为弥补“四类案件”监管机制的不足,这表现为:一是“四类案件”本身难以发现和识别,二是考核压力下院庭长和承办法官缺乏动力启动监管程序,三是院庭长对于“非四类案件”的脱管导致裁判文书质量下滑。关于阅核制的发展,在政策层面,由于司法责任愈加向院庭长集中,改革可能导致其脱离办案岗位或者选择尽量将案件提交审委会讨论,这与司法责任制改革关于院庭长亲自、带头办案以及审委会的定位之间产生背反现象。在法律层面,为保障改革的合法性,可以考虑对院庭长启动审委会的权限进行适当限制。在法理层面,为尊重法官独立办案权,院庭长在阅核过程中应当保持谦抑,慎用部分监管措施,并限缩监管方式。

The current review and verification system implemented by the court system is still essentially a means for court presidents and division heads to exercise trial supervision and management powers,but the difference lies in the fact that in addition to the “four types of cases” in the reform of the judicial responsibility system,it also covers the “non-four types of cases” that originally belonged to the “reserved land” of single judges and collegial panels.Although the examination is still a document issuance system in form,it is only a right to initiate proceedings,not a substantive right to dispose of,and therefore it is not a copy of the case-by-case approval system.From the perspective of the reform background,the introduction of the review and verification system is mainly to make up for the shortcomings of the supervision mechanism of the “four types of cases”,which is manifested in:first,the “four types of cases”themselves are difficult to discover and identify;second,under the pressure of evaluation,the court president and the judge also lack the motivation to start the supervision procedure,and the third,the court president's detachment from the control of “non-four types of cases” has led to a decline in the quality of judgment documents.On the development of the review system.At the policy level,due to the increasing concentration of judicial responsibility on court presidents and division heads,the reform may lead them to leave their case-handling posts or choose to submit cases to the adjudication committee for discussion as much as possible,which is contrary to the reform of the judicial responsibility system with regard to the court presidents and division heads personally taking the lead in handling cases and the positioning of the adjudication committee.At the legal level,in order to ensure the legitimacy of the reform,appropriate restrictions may be considered on the authority of court presidents and division heads to initiate the adjudication committee.At the legal level,in order to respect judges' independent case-handling powers,court presidents and division heads should remain modest during the review process,prudently use some regulatory measures,and limit the methods of supervision.