文章摘要
实体导向的必要共同诉讼:模式转换与制度重塑
Substantive Law-oriented Compulsory Joinder: Model Transformation and System Reshaping
  
DOI:
中文关键词:  必要共同诉讼;民法典;诉讼标的;职权追加;普通共同诉讼
英文关键词:  compulsory joinder; Civil Code; subject matter; ex officio addition of parties; permissive joinder
基金项目:
作者单位
任重 清华大学法学院 
摘要点击次数: 588
全文下载次数: 7
中文摘要:
      基于查明案件事实、降低诉讼成本、避免矛盾裁判等诉讼政策,我国确立了程序导向的必要共同诉讼,导致必要共同诉讼的泛用和“同案不同判”。实践中,当事人频繁以诉讼标的非同一为由提出管辖权异议,以遗漏必要共同诉讼人为由提起上诉甚至申请再审。民法典的实施未能改变程序导向模式,司法解释和典型案例的实体导向探索反而模糊了必要与普通共同诉讼的界线。在设置模式上,我国较苏联更偏向程序导向,必要共同诉讼的扩大化和恣意化是其固有弊病。实体导向模式存在以德国法为代表的复数诉讼标的形态和以瑞士法为代表的单一诉讼标的形态。单一诉讼标的形态更契合民法典视阈下必要共同诉讼的模式转换需要,即在必要共同诉讼的制度目的上强调实体决定性,在概念内涵上限定为狭义的“诉讼标的共同”,在基本类型上根据我国实体法的自身特色重塑固有/类似必要共同诉讼以及紧密/松散普通共同诉讼,在法律效果上回归民事诉讼法第135条之文义,并协同完善与之配套的程序导向普通共同诉讼制度。
英文摘要:
      Based on the procedural policies such as fact-finding, cost-reducing and contradictory judgments-avoiding, the procedure-oriented criteria of compulsory joinder has been established in China, resulting in the generalized application of compulsory joinder and “different judgments in similar cases”. In practice, parties often object to jurisdiction on the grounds of the non-identity of the subject matter of the action, and appeal or even apply for a retrial on the grounds of the omission of the necessary co-litigants. The implementation of the Civil Code has not been able to change the procedure-oriented model, while the substantive law-oriented explorations through judicial interpretations and typical precedents have instead blurred the line between compulsory and permissive joinder. The Chinese model of joinder is more procedure-oriented than the Soviet Union, and expansive and arbitrary application of compulsory joinder is the inherent drawbacks of this model. The substantive law-oriented model exists in two forms, that is, the plural subject matter of litigation, represented by the German law, and the single subject matter of litigation, represented by the Swiss law. The single subject matter model is more suitable for the transformation of the rules of compulsory joinder under the Civil Code, which means emphasizing the decisive role of the substantive law in the purpose of compulsory joinder, limiting the concept of “the same subject matter” in the narrow sense, reshaping the basic types of the inherent/similar compulsory joinder and the close/loose permissive joinder according to the characteristics of China’s substantive law, recovering the effect of compulsory joinder coherent with the legislative meaning of Article 135 of the Civil Procedure Law, and improving in a coordinated way the procedure-oriented permissive joinder at the same time.
查看全文    下载PDF阅读器
关闭