Discussion On The Evidence Disclosure Of Civil Litigation

The system of evidence disclosure of civil litigation is one important litigation system in the preparatory procedures in civil litigation. The function of the system of evidence disclosure of civil litigation is to fix the litigation request of the party and to settle arguments and evidence before the court interrogation and to make preparations for the procedures of court interrogation. The system of evidence disclosure of civil litigation has played a crucial role in the transformational process of the civil litigation mode in our country. The current regulation of evidence disclosure of civil litigation has not formed into a system, needing to be perfected. Starting from the comparative study of evidence disclosure of civil litigation, this paper defines the concept of evidence disclosure of civil litigation and thereafter makes an analysis on its value tropism, on the basis of rational understanding of it evaluates the present condition of evidence disclosure of civil litigation and puts forward the ideas on the perfection of the system of evidence disclosure of civil litigation in our country. This paper is composed of four parts. Part One Introduction of Evidence Disclosure of Civil Litigation Evidence disclosure or discovery is one concept in the legal system of the Great Britain and the United States, which can also be translated as procedure discovery, evidence reveal and evidence presentation and so on. At present, there are various ideas about the connotation of evidence disclosure of civil litigation from scholars home and abroad and there has not come the last word about it. By making a comparative study on the two law systems'evidence disclosure of civil litigation, arguments and evidence settling procedures representing the country, we can see that arguments and evidence settling procedures represent the country is the points in common. The points are concluded as the following:The party initiatively takes part in the evidence disclosure under the guidance and management of the judge in the preparatory procedures in civil litigation. In order to prevent the lost of evidence power, the party provides evidence in the limited time. In the legally permitted range of evidence disclosure, by way of acquirement in written form, self-reorganization and other ways of evidence disclosure, the party can know the opinions and evidence of the opposite party and on this basis collects his own evidence adequately. Before the court interrogation, the party fixes the litigation request. The court sort argument and evidence and the party discusses or the judge finally decides the items in the court interrogation so as to make a full preparation for the court interrogation. On 6st, December, 2001, the Ultimate People's Court issued "Several Regulations on Civil Litigation Evidence". This is the first time that our country makes regulations on the time limitation of evidence quotation and evidence exchange in the form of judicial explanation. The time limitation of evidence quotation refers to a kind of system in civil litigation. According to it, the party responsible for evidence quotation should provide the evidence to prove his argument in the time limited by law or by the court and he will assume the legal consequence of lost power of evidence if his evidence quotation is overdue. Evidence exchange means that under the organization of the people's court, the party exchanges his own evidence with the opposite party. Although the time limitation of evidence quotation and evidence exchange in our country is not perfect, they have something in common with the foreign civil evidence disclosure in terms of establishing purpose and functions. To summarize the above, in terms of the nature and gist, I believe the evidence disclosure of civil litigation is a litigation system, its main meaning is that before the interrogation procedures, In the legal term or the term specified by court, the party must apprize to the opposite party the evidence that he has or controls and hope to use in the interrogation procedures, The evidence which aren't provided by the above procedures are forbidden to be presented in the interrogation procedures, and the court must not put it as the basis of verdict. Part Two Value Orientation of Evidence disclosure of Civil Litigation As one important litigation system, evidence disclosure of civil litigation has its own value orientation. The value orientation of evidence disclosure of civil litigation is the precondition of its formation and development and also determines its necessary mode in the future legislation. Evidence disclosure of civil litigation is propitious to balance legitimate and efficiency of litigation and makes adjustment to the possibly existing conflict and contradictions between litigation efficiency and legitimate requirements. Evidence disclosure of civil litigation can be traced back to the movement of "evidence timely provided". Evidence disclosure of civil litigation can ensure the coherence and connection in time between the prior-interrogation preparation and other litigation stages and provides guarantees for the timely and orderly proceedings of litigation procedures and ensures the finality of procedures and maintains the procedure stability. Evidence disclosure of civil litigation can supervise and urge the party to exert his rights and interests in time according to the principle of honesty and Credit and to perform the assisting obligations so as to make the conception of "hostile litigation fighting"change into the conception of "fair controversy between equal subjects"accordant to the present time spirit. Through evidence disclosure of civil litigation, the party has a clear understanding and credible prediction and estimate on the merits and defects of the legal and factual evidence between the two parties, which helps to improve case-ending rate in adjustment and case-retreating ending rate. Part Three Comment and Analysis on Evidence Disclosure of Civil Litigation On 6st, December, 2001, the Ultimate People's Court issued "SeveralRegulations on Civil Litigation Evidence", which gives regulations on time limitation of evidence quotation and evidence exchange. This is the current regulation on evidence disclosure of civil litigation. The establishment of the regulation on evidence disclosure of civil litigation symbolizes the transformation from "momentary evidence providence creed"to "timing evidence providence creed"in our country. But there are many defects in the form and contents of the legislation, which is established only aiming to meet the present need of civil judgment practice inside the country and it is only a simple and coarse imitation of foreign evidence disclosure of civil litigation. So it can be only regarded as the rudiment of evidence disclosure of civil litigation. The civil litigation law in our country has not regulations for evidence disclosure. "Several Regulations on Civil Litigation Evidence"break through the current civil litigation law and make the judicial explanations on evidence disclosure. That means if there is the suspicion of beyond-range explanation and beyond-authority "legislation", the legal reference of evidence disclosure of civil litigation will be definitely doubted and the result of putting into practice is bad. Evidence exchange has not been universally applied in civil litigation. The court only starts up evidence exchange according to the application of the party or complicated cases. As the result, the function of evidence exchange cannot be really exerted in practice. Therefore, the regulation that the concerning party can discuss the time limit of evidence quotation nearly equals to a piece of blank paper and it is too casual for the judge to determine the ending of the term of evidence quotation. In judicial practices, judges have different standards for the range of evidence exchange and the concrete performance is relatively disordered. In the process of evidence exchange, the protection for some special social relationships is not enough. The unified presiding institutes of evidence exchange leads to quite many controversies and different operations in judicial practices. Interrogators directly control evidence exchange. Their dominant color is too heavy and they can't ensure that the party can exert free punishing right. Due to the lack of concrete operational regulations on evidence exchange, there are great differences among local courts on the concrete operations on evidence disclosure of civil litigation. Besides, the evidence disclosure of civil litigation in our country is not adapted to the functioning environment and this is one of the important factors for the fact that it cannot normally exert its function. "Law cannot do with nothing else". The traditional litigation mode and concepts have gone against the function of evidence disclosure of civil litigation. The lack of supporting systems for evidence disclosure of civil litigation causes evidence it not to exert its function normally. Part Four Thoughts on the Perfection of the System of Evidence Disclosure of Civil Litigation in Our country With the continuous deepening of the civil judicial reformation in our...