On The Civil Pre-trial Preparation Procedures And Improve The System

As an important component of the civil action procedure, the civil pre-trail preparatory procedure' scientific design or not, reasonable or not has huge relations with realizing the purpose of the entire lawsuit's fair and lawsuit's benefit. And its essence is to find a reasonable equilibrium between lawsuit's fair and lawsuit's benefit. No system can be perfect. The legal system's designing process is legal policy's changing process. Exploring civil pre-trail operating program which fits trail rule needs scientific and reasonable lawsuit to match. Our country's civil lawsuit is in a conversing phrase, however, the conversion is a complex process during which confers a series of adjustments related with the whole lawsuit system.The author discusses the pre-trail preparatory procedure's characters from 4parts. The differences of the pre-trail preparatory procedure and the court procedure lies in: (1)lying in different lawsuit stages. They're divided by opening a court session from forms. They're the two related independent phase and procedure. (2)setting the two procedures in accordance with different basises. The establishment of pre-trail preparatory procedure is to give the two litigants a fair competing chance, reducing lawsuit raid and improving lawsuit efficiency. But the court procedure is based on judgment basis' valid principle. It asks the court to se t lawsuit information which is obtained by the limited opening a court session as judge basis. (3)the different function and task. the pre-trail preparatory procedure is mainly to fix and conform the two litigants" views, to sort out and fix evidence and promote reconciliation. In the court procedure the two litigants express their views fully based on words before the judge is to through public forms, so the two litigants have full chances to express their views. (4) the pre-trail preparatory procedure is usually many times, repeatedly and unceasingly carry, but the court procedure should be concentrated, continuous and finish once as possible as it can . "Justice and efficiency" is the value of the civil pre-trail preparatory procedure. The author analyses the problem of our country's civil pre-trail preparatory procedure: first, the judge and litigants' effect in pre-trail procedure don't set a reasonable location. Second, it pay less attention to the evidence's raising right and collecting right. Third, the Operation of the arguing points and evidence's collecting is short of mature. So, our country carries out " preparatory court" , "speed court" system's reform practice. What's called " preparatory court", is adapting the Supreme court's "three separation" request, insert" preparatory process" between setting a case and trail, that's to say, set a trail auxiliary group to ensure the trail orderly carrying and to specially charge pre-trail preparatory works. What's called "speed court" , is some easy civil and commercial cases don't carry these procedures, such as dividing, time arranging, delivery, opening a court session, judgment, but directly try the case in the speed court and quickly adjudicate. In the trail practice, the two systems obtain good results, but still lie shortcomings.Focusing on the current civil pre-trail preparatory procedure system's reform practice, in this paper the author thinks it needs to be perfect from the following aspects: First, to establish the forced reply system which is based on cost sanctions, supplemented by the specific contents' reply -lost the right system. Our country's "civil lawsuit law" stipulates that "it won't affect the people's court hearing if the accused doesn't arise reply suit". The author thinks that the request of the lawsuit right's equal principle and procedural justice forces the forced reply to become an indispensable choice. So it should be based on insisting the forced reply, and pay attention to the forced reply system's choice. Second, to establish the evidence exchanging system which is a part of court trail action. In the specific implementation, the litigants raise disagreement on the evidence which is submitted by others. The disagreement's specific continent is the evidences' proving ability and proving effect. Judges should keep the facts and evidences in record which the litigants have no disagreement It needs to clear evidences' exchanging scope, to establish the pre-judge system, to set up the pre-trail conference system. Third, to take reform on evidences' time limiting system. Take before the end of the court debating as raising evidences period's expiration. Fourth, to improve some specific practices on pre-trail mediations' system.