我国民事再审审查程序的反思和优化

Reflection and Optimization of Civil Retrial Review Procedure in China

民事再审审查程序是民事再审审理程序的前置环节,对于保障当事人、案外人申请再审权,过滤不符合再审条件的申请再审案件具有重要价值。当前,虽然我国立法已从管辖法院、审查方式、申请再审事由等方面对该程序作了较为全面的规定,但仔细审视,民事再审审查程序仍存在再审申请的管辖法院不利于发挥各级法院应有职能、申请再审原则上免交案件受理费不利于控制再审审查案件数量、以书面审查为主的审查方式不利于保障申请人程序参与权以及“新证据”的认定标准不利于统一再审审查的结果等问题。为进一步优化民事再审审查程序,正确定位四级法院的审级职能,应将再审申请的管辖法院统一规定为原审法院,完善申请再审案件的受理费交纳规则,提升询问、听证等审查方式的适用频率,并正确把握再审审查阶段“新证据”的认定标准。

The civil retrial review procedure is a precursor to the civil retrial proceedings,and is of great value in safeguarding the rights and interests of the parties and outsiders applying for retrial,and in correcting the errors in the judgements and conciliations in force.Although China’s legislation has made relatively comprehensive provisions on this procedure in terms of the court of jurisdiction,the mode of review,the subject matter of the application for retrial,et cetera.,upon closer examination,there are still courts of jurisdiction that are not conducive to giving full play to the due functions of the courts at all levels,the system of fees for retrial cases is not conducive to controlling the number of cases for retrial review,and the mode of review,which is mainly based on a written review,is not conducive to safeguarding the right of the parties to participate in the procedure,and the determination of“new evidence”is not conducive to the protection of the rights of the parties.The criteria for determining“new evidence”are not conducive to maintaining the stability of effective judgements and rulings.To further optimize the civil retrial review procedure and accurately position the trial level function of fourth-level courts,several measures should be undertaken.Firstly,the jurisdiction for retrial applications should be consolidated to align with the court of first instance where the application frequency is highest.Additionally,enhancements should be made to the regulations governing acceptance fees for retrial cases.Furthermore,efforts should be directed towards improving the inquiry and hearing processes,and ensuring a proper understanding of the criteria for identifying“new evidence”during the retrial-review stage.