Abstract
Evidence is the key and basic thing for civil cases.In recent years,due to the trial way reform,our country court litigation mode has gradually reformed,which is now in the hands of the past pattern of authority doctrine litigant mode gradually to the transitional stage.\a basic rule of civil evidence,so the investigation evidence collection,the parties should bear responsibility for what you claim.After the proof burden of parties to be implemented and distribution effectively,collect evidence investigation of judge also followed by the past super, leading all proof mode to limit the burden of direction changes,the change from the judicial practice is more conducive to the judicial justice.But we know,the development of any thing has two sides,the proof responsibility,while greatly improving the enthusiasm of parties to the investigation,but also gradually high lighted the burden of difficult problems.In judicial practice,the parties and their agent lawyer of the very big resistance in the investigation and collection of evidence,not only to the relevant units,witness investigation and evidence collection with out cooperation,but also to the public security,industrial and commercial,in traffic,land,the administrative law enforcement department of investigation and evidence collection is often to management or the need for confident kinds of internal rules and reasons for refusal,the reality of a serious violation of the rights of the parties to obtain evidence,also affects the party's ability to produce,of ten cause the party into a \cannot tell\the system cannot guarantee the investigation and evidence collection rights,limited the party's burden of proof ability and bear the risk of losing,unable to realize the lawsuit purpose,the ultimate value goal makes civil litigation pursuit of substantive justice,safe guard the legitimate rights and interests are difficult to realize.
In order to solve the judicial practice of evidence difficult problem,in recent years,other parts of the country have carried out the investigation system,but because the system still in the exploration stage,fundamentally and the lack of legislative support necessary,and in practice there are many obstruction.Practice has proved,the area people's court to implement investigation system,is to perfect the system of burden of proof of the parties,to establish an important reform measures of the people's Court justice,justice,neutral judge image,from regional trial lawyer investigation system can be seen,investigation system feasible,effective,but from the implement situation investigation system view,this system still need further improvement.To perfect this system we need to
take many measures,new system,together with the whole society depends on the.The court needs to play a leading role,and actively promote the lawyer investigation system to promote and perfect,make continuous development;as the investigation subject lawyers need to strictly in accordance with the investigation order requirement investigation,shall not be altered,forged,abuse of lawyers investigation,may not be the legal investigation to violations of the legitimate rights and interests of a tool;as investigators need to establish respect to investigate the awareness,to avoid unnecessary trouble.In short,the lawyer investigation system itself to constantly to continue to study,through the theory continuously explored and improved,and then guide the lawyer investigation and practice, making perfect lawyer system,promoting the investigation order system,perfecting the lawyer investigation of evidence system in our country.
Keywords：investigation and taking of evidence；The lawyer investigation； Effect of operation；Improvement suggestions
目 录
摘 要 ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... 6 目 录 ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 引 言 .................................................................................................................................................... 10
一、问题的提出 ............................................................................................................................. 10 二、选题背景及意义 ..................................................................................................................... 11 三、文献综述 ................................................................................................................................. 11 四、研究方法 ................................................................................................................................. 12 五、论文结构安排 ......................................................................................................................... 13 第1章 律师调查令制度概述 ............................................................................................................. 14 1.1 律师调查令制度的含义 ......................................................................................................... 14 1.2 我国试行律师调查令制度的背景 ......................................................................................... 15
1.2.1 现有民事案件调查取证方式明显不足 ....................................................................... 15 1.2.2 社会历史习惯的阻碍 ................................................................................................... 17 1.3 律师调查令制度的价值 ......................................................................................................... 17
1.3.1 律师调查令制度的程序价值 ....................................................................................... 18 1.3.2 律师调查令制度的实体价值 ....................................................................................... 19 1.3.3 律师调查令制度诉讼效益价值 ................................................................................... 20 第2章 我国律师调查令制度的实践探索 ......................................................................................... 22
2.1 我国律师调查令制度的立法状况 ......................................................................................... 23 2.2 我国律师调查令的司法实践现状 ......................................................................................... 23 2.3 我国律师调查令制度的积极效果 ......................................................................................... 25 2.4 我国律师调查令制度的实践困境 ......................................................................................... 26
第3章 律师调查取证方式域外考察 ................................................................................. 29 3.1 大陆法系国家律师调查取证方式考察 ................................................................................. 29
3.1.1 德国律师调查取证制度 ............................................................................................. 29 3.1.2 日本律师调查取证制度 ............................................................................................. 30 3.2 英美法系国家律师调查取证方式考察 ................................................................................. 31
3.2.1 美国律师调查取证制度 ............................................................................................. 31 3.2.2 英国律师调查取证制度 ............................................................................................. 32 3.3 域外律师调查取证方式评析................................................................................................. 33 第4章 我国正式构建律师调查令制度的思考 ................................................................................. 35
4.1 确定调查令制度的法律地位 .......................................................................................... 35 4.2 规范律师调查令运行程序 .............................................................................................. 35 4.3 完善律师调查令的文书设置 .......................................................................................... 36 4.4 要正确处理不同调查取证方式的关系 .......................................................................... 37 4.5 建立相应的罚则体系 ...................................................................................................... 38 结 语 .................................................................................................................................................... 40 参考文献................................................................................................................................................. 41 致谢 ........................................................................................................................................................ 43
8
在校期间公开发表的研究成果 ............................................................................................................. 44
9
引 言
一、问题的提出
俗语说“打官司就是打证据”，由此可见，证据是法院对民事案件进行审理和裁判的关键和根本。近年来，由于审判方式改革的不断推进，我国法院的诉讼模式也随之逐步改革，目前正处于由过去的职权主义模式逐步向当事人主义诉讼模式过渡的阶段。“谁主张，谁举证”这一诉讼原则已成为民事证据领域的基本规则，因而当事人对自己所提出的主张负有调查、收集证据的责任。当事人的证明责任得到有效的落实与分配之后，法官调查收取证据也随之由过去的超主导包揽举证模式逐步向限制举证方向进行转变，这一转变从司法实践来看，无疑更有利于司法公正。但是我们知道，任何事物的发展都有两面性，当事人证明责任的落实，虽然大大提高了当事人调查取证的积极性，但随之也逐步突显出来了当事人举证难等各种问题。在司法实践中，当事人及其委托代理律师在调查收集证据时常常受到很大的阻力，不但在向有关单位、证人等进行调查取证时得不到合作，而且在向公安、工商、交通、土地等这些行政执法部门调查取证时也常常被以管理或保密需要等各种内部规定和理由予以拒绝，这些现实情况严重侵犯了当事人调取证据的权利，也影响了当事人的举证能力，往往导致当事人陷入“有理说不清”的境地。由于现行制度根本无法保障当事人调查取证的权利，使当事人的举证能力受限而承担败诉风险，无法实现其诉讼目的，最终使得民事诉讼追求实体公正、保障当事人合法权益的价值目标也就难以实现。
为解决司法实践中当事人取证难的问题，部分地区法院进行了探索：上海市高级人民法院于2000年颁布了《上海法院调查令实施规则（试行）》，并在全国率先推行调查令制度，以保障当事人的调查取证权。在2007年《最高人民法院关于全面加强知识产权审判工作为建设创新型国家提供司法保障意见》中指出“探索试行调查令制度，对于属于国家有关部门保存而当事人无法自行取得的证据和当事人确因客观原因不能自行收集的其他证据，可以探索由法院授权当事人的代理律师进行调查取证”，这个规定显然可以理解为最高人民法院对调查令制度初创的认可。近几年，全国其他地区也相继推行了调查令制度,虽然实践中的试点轰轰烈烈，但由于该制度目前尚处于探索阶段，从根本上又缺乏必要的立法支持，因而在实践运行中存在诸多阻碍。本文通过梳理我国调查取证方式的逐步改变历程，揭示律师调查令制度的出台背景，概述了调查令制度的含义，并以我国现有部分地区律师调查令制度为蓝本，总结这一制度运行效果，并对运行过程存在的问题及进行分析，以期为进一步完善律师调查令制度提出一些粗浅看法。
10