论文部分内容阅读
民事诉讼中,就作为判决基础的事实证据由谁负责主张和提供来说,存在着辩论主义与职权探知主义之分。辩论主义适用于民事私益案件,而职权探知主义适用于民事公益案件或含有公益因素的事项。职权探知主义是指法院不限于当事人主张的事实和提供的证据的范围,依职权主动收集事实和调取证据。对于民事公益案件或含有公益因素的事项,采取法院职权探知主义,既符合现代法治的原则,又能够维护公共利益和实现现代民事诉讼目的。根据正当程序保障原理和程序参与原则,法院依职权收集的事实证据必须经过当事人质证辩论或发表意见,才能作为法院裁判的根据。
In civil lawsuits, there is a distinction between debate doctrine and functional suspectism in terms of who is responsible for asserting and providing factual evidence on the basis of the verdict. Argumentativeism applies to civil cases of private benefit, whereas causalism is applicable to cases of civil public interest or public interest. Expiration of authority refers to the court not limited to the facts claimed by the parties and the scope of the evidence provided, according to the authority to take the initiative to collect facts and to obtain evidence. For civil public interest cases or matters that contain public welfare factors, the use of court explorative doctrine not only conforms to the principle of modern law, but also can safeguard public interest and realize the purpose of modern civil litigation. According to the principle of due process guarantee and the principle of procedural participation, the factual evidence collected by the court according to its functions and powers must be verified or argued by the parties concerned as the basis for the court’s judgment.