硕士论文摘要
我国现行的司法鉴定程序大体遵循着先起诉再鉴定的模式，在实践中存在案件审理时间长、案件处理效率低的问题。在当前案件总量急剧增长、矛盾日趋复杂的背景下，此问题显得更为突出，严重影响法院在纠纷化解中的工作质效。为发挥诉前司法鉴定对促进诉前调解、案件分流的功能，本文在肯定法院主持下诉前司法鉴定积极作用的基础上，以各地开展的实践探索为样本，评价其司法实践效果，并通过借鉴德法等国民事诉讼法上的相应程序，对构建我国的诉前司法鉴定程序进行若干思考，在理论探讨的基础上，对诉前司法鉴定的程序化、制度化构建提出合理化的建议。
本文分为五部分，分别是导言、诉前司法鉴定概述、诉前司法鉴定的实践考察、诉前司法鉴定的程序化构建和结语。
导言部分主要说明本文的选题依据与意义、文献综述及主要的研究方法。
第一章诉前司法鉴定概述，对诉前司法鉴定的基本理论进行了梳理。本章分为三节，第一节诉前司法鉴定的涵义，第二节诉前司法鉴定的意义，第三节诉前司法鉴定的原则。第一节诉前司法鉴定的涵义部分，介绍诉前司法鉴定的概念、性质与相关概念的比较。学界从司法鉴定概念的理解入手，对于司法实践中法院诉前委托鉴定行为是否属于司法鉴定的范围，看法不一。本文在论证诉前法院参与鉴定行为属于司法鉴定范畴的基础上，对诉前司法鉴定的概念予以界定。然后对诉前司法鉴定与相关概念进行比较，从比较中分析诉前司法鉴定制度存在的必要性。文章选取实践中存在的两种鉴定制度-当事人自行委托鉴定与诉讼中司法鉴定，首先对其概念、制度异同点进行了介绍，最后分析两种鉴定制度在实践中存在的问题，进而得出诉前司法鉴定与两者相比较的优势。第二节分析诉前司法鉴定的意义，文章重点从当事人、法院的角度分析诉前司法鉴定存在的意义。第三节分析诉前司法鉴定的基本原则，由于其属于司法鉴定的范畴，在实际操作中，应遵守司法鉴定的一般原则，依法鉴定原则是最基本的原则，依照专业标准鉴定原则、客观鉴定原则、公开公正鉴定原则是作为一项专业鉴定活动须遵守的一般原则，又因其诉前司法鉴定的制度设计目的、特点，应遵守当事人自愿原则、有利于调解原则。
第二章是诉前司法鉴定的实践考察。分为三节，第一节是诉前司法鉴定试点实践考察，第二节诉前司法鉴定实践中的效果，第三节诉前司法鉴定实践中存在的问题。在第一节中文章选取我国诉前司法鉴定试点中具有代表性的法院：北京市西城区法院、上海市徐汇区法院、广东东莞市第二人民法院，介绍三法院在探索诉前司法鉴定中取得的经验，介绍其具体操作流程。第二节结合司法实践，总结诉前司法鉴定在实践中取得的效果，主要有：一、提高和解率、平息纠纷，二、缩短案件诉讼周期，三、减轻当事人诉讼负担，四、缓和双方争议矛盾。第三节具体分析诉前司法鉴定在实践中存在的问题，文章认为司法实践中主要存在以下问题：一、诉前司法鉴定的管辖权不清；二、诉前司法鉴定可能侵犯当事人诉权；三、诉前司法鉴定相对方权利保护缺失；四、诉前鉴定意见在诉讼中效力认定不一；五、和解协议无法律效力；六、诉前鉴定费用负担不统一。
第三章是诉前司法鉴定的程序化构建。分为三节，第一节诉前司法鉴定的模式，第二节诉前司法鉴定的程序构建，第三节诉前法院委托司法鉴定的配套措施。
第一节分为两部分，首先从我国探索诉前司法鉴定的实践中总结出法院委托型、法院中介型、法院咨询型三种诉前司法鉴定模式，然后从我国国情出发，具体分析法院委托型诉前司法鉴定模式是我国应选模式，并从我国司法现状、比较法的角度说明原因。在确定了我国诉前司法鉴定模式选择的基础上，第二节讨论诉前司法鉴定的程序构建。首先讨论适用诉前司法鉴定的案件类型，本文认为司法实践中所采取的列举式规定，无法涵盖所有应适用诉前司法鉴定的案件类型。本文提出应当采用归纳式，总结出适用诉前司法鉴定的案件特点，具体由法院立案庭决定。其次讨论适用诉前司法鉴定的前提条件，包括法院有管辖权、当事人申请、鉴定事项与案件有关。第三节具体讨论诉前司法鉴定的程序规则。主要有：一、立案释明；二、申请鉴定，审查受理；三、通知对方当事人；四、提交鉴定材料并质证；五、办理鉴定手续。诉前司法鉴定程序在实践中的有效运作，除了科学、合理的程序规则，与之相配套的措施不可或缺。第四节就是介绍与诉前司法鉴定程序相配套的措施，包括：一、明确诉前司法鉴定的主管部门；二、保障对方当事人在诉前司法鉴定中的权利，赋予其知情权、参与质证权；三、直接将诉前司法鉴定意见在诉讼中作为证据使用；四、建立诉前司法鉴定和解协议与司法确认程序的衔接机制；五、确定以被诉方预付，责任方最终承担的鉴定费用负担原则。
诉前鉴定模式、具体程序规则、相应配套措施三者共同构成了诉前司法鉴定程序化的具体内容。
结语部分概括说明本文的主要内容，并说明对于诉前司法鉴定制度继续深入研究的必要性。
[关键词] 诉前司法鉴定；程序；规范
Abstract
China adopts authority dominant litigation model, which obeys the process thatparties in action must prosecute firstly and do a judicial expertise then, and we callthat judicial expertise during the litigation. However, as a professional activityinvesting evidence, it is improper to put judicial expertise ahead of litigation,otherwise, that will push back the party's expectation for the result of litigation,aggravate the tension between the both parties and also waste the judicial resources.
Under the circumstances in which lots of cases sprout out, and social contradictionsget more complete, it is more clear and obvious for the disadvantages of the modelfirstly prosecuting and then dong judicial expertise. To deal with the situation, Beijingxicheng district people's court and Shanghai xuhui district people's court start toexplore to start the judicial expertise before the litigation in practice. Because of thelack of relevant laws, the situation lacking standardization and unification starts tooccur in this exploration to reform existing judicial system from bottom up, and iteven contradicts with existing laws in some situations. It's just because of the variousproblems that it is necessary to do further researching about the model starting thejudicial expertise ahead of the litigation. To enhance the function of judicial expertisebefore litigation, my article chooses some courts, which has started the practice ofjudicial expertise and achieved good effect, as samples to assess the judicial effects inpractice. During the process, my article learn some lessons from German's civilprocedural laws, and also do some researching on the construction of Chinese judicialexpertise before litigation. Generally speaking, my article wants to do discussionprimarily on the promotion and application of this model in practice, express myopinions about the sequencing of judicial expertise before litigation.
My article can be divided into five sections, including introduction, overview ofjudicial expertise before litigation, survey on the practice of judicial expertise beforelitigation, the sequencing of judicial expertise and the conclusion.
The introduction mainly describes the basis and meaning choosing this topic todiscuss, literature review and main research methods of my article.
The first chapter is mainly about overview of judicial expertise before litigation,and introduces the basic theories of judicial expertise before litigation. Firstly myarticle introduces the concept and nature of judicial expertise. There are differentviewpoints about the question whether it can be contained in ranges of judicialexpertise for courts to delegate expertise to other organizations in practice. My articledescribes the concept of judicial expertise, based on the viewpoint that it should becontained in ranges of judicial expertise for courts to delegate expertise to otherorganizations in practice. The second chapter compares the judicial expertise beforelitigation and relevant concepts, and discusses the advantages of this model. Myarticle chooses two different expertise models in practice to study, including judicialexpertise entrusted by parties and judicial expertise during litigation. The articleintroduces the similarities and differences among judicial expertise before litigation,the judicial expertise entrusted by parties and the judicial expertise during litigation,and thinks the judicial expertise before litigation has more advantages over othermodels, which highlights the advantages of the judicial expertise before litigation.
The second chapter, which is divided into three sections, researches the effects ofjudicial expertise before litigation in practice. The first section introduces theexperiences of this model, and then the second study the practical effects of the model,and finally the third section discusses the problems of the model in practice. In thefirst section, the article introduces how the judicial expertise before litigation is donein practice, based on the researching on the experiences of Beijing xicheng districtpeople's court and Shanghai xuhui district people's court. The second sectionsummarizes the successful experiences in practice. Firstly, judicial expertise beforelitigation could enhance the efficiency of litigation and solve the disputation of parties,and the model can cut down the lawsuit time. Secondly this model can decrease theburden of parties. Thirdly, the model can ease the tension between parties. In the thirdsection, the article summarize the existing problems of the model in practice,including the unclear jurisdiction, the violation of parties' right of action, the lack ofprotection for opposite party, the not uniform effects of conclusion of judicialappraisal before litigation, settlement agreement's having not legal force, and theunclear subject burdening appraisal cost.
The third chapter divided into three sections discusses sequencing of judicialexpertise before litigation. The first section also can be divided into two parts, and thefirst part summarize three different model in practice of judicial expertise, includingthe type entrusted by court, the type with the court as agency, and the type with courtas consultant. Then, I explain why the type entrusted by court should be the typefitting China from the aspects of Chinese judicial situation and comparative law.
The second section mainly discusses sequencing of judicial expertise beforelitigation, after we confirm China should choose this model. At first, I think theenumerative method should turn into inductive method when the court decided whatcases can suit the judicial expertise before litigation, because enumerative methodcan't meet the needs of different cases. In addition, my article discusses thepreconditions applying judicial expertise before litigation, including the court'shaving jurisdiction, the party's filing application, and the issues needed to beidentified being relevant with the cases. After discussing the cases suiting judicialexpertise before litigation and precondition, the third parts discusses the specific ruleof the model. The rules include:1.the court interpretates the rules in reviewing.2.theparty files an application, and the court accepts and examinates the application.3.thejudge announces the opposite party.4.the party submit the expertise materials, andaccept cross examination.5.the party and court go through expertise's formalities.
Besides the scientific and reasonable rules, some supporting measures must beindispensable. The third section mainly introduces some supporting measures,includes: 1. the competent department should be defined, and I think the organizationof prosecution court should be reformed, and the special administration belonging toprosecution court and supervising judicial expertise before litigation should built. 2.
The opposite party's right should be protected during the judicial expertise beforelitigation, and should be given right to know and right to participate. 3. Theconclusion of judicial appraisal should be directly regarded as evidence to be used inaction. 4. The system that contacts settlement agreements and the judicialconfirmation process should be built. 5. The principle that the expertise's cost firstly isburdened and finally is burdened by subject liability should be confirmed.
The conclusion introduces the main contents of this article, and express that it isnecessary to continue the research on the judicial expertise before litigation.
【Key words】 Pre-trial forensic;routinization ;criterion
目 录
导言
一、提出问题
二、研究意义
三、文献综述
四、研究方法
第一章 诉前司法鉴定概述
第一节 诉前司法鉴定的涵义
一、诉前司法鉴定的概念
二、诉前司法鉴定的性质
三、诉前司法鉴定与相关概念的辨析
第二节 诉前司法鉴定的意义
一、诉前司法鉴定有利于保护当事人的诉权
二、诉前司法鉴定有利于法院提高司法质效
第三节 诉前司法鉴定的原则
一、一般原则
二、特有原则
第二章 诉前司法鉴定的实践考察
第一节 诉前司法鉴定的实践考察
一、北京市西城区法院
二、上海市徐汇区法院
三、东莞市第二人民法院
第二节 诉前司法鉴定的实践效果
一、促进和解、平息纠纷
二、缩短案件的诉讼周期
三、减轻当事人诉讼负担
四、缓和双方的争议矛盾
第三节 诉前司法鉴定的实践问题
一、诉前司法鉴定的管辖权归属不清
二、诉前司法鉴定可能侵犯当事人诉权
三、诉前司法鉴定相对方权利保护缺失
四、诉前鉴定意见诉讼中效力认定不一
五、诉前司法鉴定和解协议无法律效力
六、诉前司法鉴定费用负担原则不统一
第三章 诉前司法鉴定的程序化构建
第一节 诉前司法鉴定的模式
一、诉前司法鉴定模式分类
二、诉前司法鉴定模式选择
第二节 诉前司法鉴定的程序构建
一、适用诉前司法鉴定的案件类型
二、适用诉前司法鉴定的前提条件
三、诉前司法鉴定的具体程序规则
第三节 诉前法院委托司法鉴定的配套措施
一、明确诉前司法鉴定的主管部门
二、保障对方当事人在诉前司法鉴定中的权利
三、直接将诉前司法鉴定意见在诉讼中作为证据使用
四、建立诉前司法鉴定和解协议与司法确认程序的衔接机制
五、确定以被诉方预付，责任方最终承担的鉴定费用负担原则
结 语
参考文献
后 记
