摘要
2019年修订的《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》保留了已为生效仲裁裁决确认的事实在诉讼中免证的规范。在司法实践中,这一规范存在性质解读不一、主体识别不清和客体界限不明的问题。产生这些问题的根源在于粗疏的法律条文难以指引司法平衡各方当事人的利益,未能顾及诉讼程序和仲裁程序在价值目标、程序构造、事实认定标准与实体法拘束程度上的差异,免证制度体系内的失序等方面。为促进法律适用的统一,解决这些问题的关键是应当将预裁事实效力明确归为证明效而非拘束效,在法官认为明显违背真实时得依心证排除。证明效作用的主体要件应为法律明确规定的限于后诉当事人和仲裁当事人一致的情形,其客体要件则应限于经当事人证明或仲裁庭查明的原始事实。由此,异议当事人可以依该事实在仲裁中的认定方式来排除证明效。
Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation amended in 2019 keeps the rule that the facts confirmed by an effective arbitration award need not to be proved in the litigation.In judicial application,regarding such rule,there are several problems such as different understanding of its nature,unclear subjective and objective scopes.Their roots lie in the facts that it is hard for the rough legislation to give guidance on balancing the interests of all parties,and such legislation fails to take into account the differences in value goal,procedural structure,fact identification standard and the degree of bindingness of positive laws between litigation and arbitration procedures,and there is disorder in the system on res judicata.In order to promote the unification of legal application,the key to solve these problems should be to clarify the effect of pre-judged fact as probative rather than binding,which can be excluded when the judge considers it obviously contrary to the truth.The element for subjects regarding the binding effect should be a situation clearly stipulated by the law that parties to the subsequent litigation are those to arbitration.The element for objects should be limited to original facts proved by the parties in the arbitration or ascertained by the arbitration tribunal.Therefore,the objecting party may apply for excluding the probative effect of a fact according to the mode of deciding it in the arbitration.
出处
《政治与法律》
CSSCI
北大核心
2021年第12期143-156,共14页
Political Science and Law
基金
湖北省社科基金项目(后期资助项目)“民事诉讼成本控制论”(项目编号:2020135)的阶段性成果。
关键词
仲裁裁决效力
免证事实
证明力
The Validity of the Arbitral Award
Res Judicata
Probative Capability
