Research On Evidence Invalidity In Civil Litigation

It is one important step towards the codification of civil litigation that the Article65of the current civil procedure law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the "civil procedure law") stipulates the system of evidence invalidity. This stipulation in the amended civil procedure law grants China’s system of evidence invalidity the status of basic law compared to that of some provisions on evidence in civil proceedings issued by the Supreme People’s Court in2001. Article65of the civil procedure law is enacted by weighing the value of substantive justice and procedural fairness in civil litigation. Despite its limited words, this article is of high significance in obliging the concerned parties to collect and file evidence promptly and regulating the people’s court on how to exclude evidence filed beyond the required timeframe. Nevertheless, there are some flaws in China’s system of evidence invalidity in civil litigation:lack of clauses, vagueness of definition and narrowing circumstance for the application of this system, etc. Based on the fundamental principles of the system of evidence invalidity and drawing lessons from the specific stipulation and research results of foreign countries and Taiwan region, this thesis proposes some suggestions to promote the improvement of China’s system of evidence invalidity.Besides the introduction and conclusion part, the main body of this thesis consists of five parts. The highlight of each part as follows:Part One:The definition and constitution of evidence invalidity. This part first explores some issues concerning the system of evidence invalidity, such as the definition differentiation between the system of evidence invalidity and that of producing evidence within time limit and the constitutive elements of the system of evidence invalidity in time period, object and legal consequences. Then it elaborates on the significance of this system from the perspective of equal litigation right, stability and economy of procedure, etc.Part Two:The comparison and contrast of the system of evidence invalidity in foreign countries and Taiwan region. This part mainly compares the stipulation and the judicial practice of the system of evidence invalidity in countries, such as Germany and Japan, adopting the Civil law, countries, such as America and Britain, adopting the Common law and China’s Taiwan region, figuring out the characteristics and similarities of each country and region and analyzing the reason for formulating the system of evidence invalidity respectively.Part Three:The development of China’s system of evidence invalidity in civil litigation. This part explores the development of this system following the chronological order, from no stipulation regarding this system to provisions on evidence in civil proceedings issued by the Supreme People’s Court, to the current civil procedure law. It also deals with the development of the judicial practice of this system.Part Four:The flaws of the current system of evidence invalidity in civil litigation. This part deals with the flaws of this system itself, such as the vague applicable situations, the unclear sequence and the narrowing circumstances for adopting this system, etc. Then it explores the lack of complementary systems to this system, namely the lack of system of defense invalidity and that of evidence collection.Part Five:Proposal for improving the system of evidence invalidity in civil litigation. This part put forwards some suggestions as how to ameliorate this system based on China’s current system and that of other countries. The specific suggestions include two main parts:the improvement of the system itself and that of its complementary systems. The former includes clarifying the sequence of legal consequences of filling evidence beyond the timeframe, defining clearly the applicable situations for adopting various evidence invalidity and remedies to evidence invalidity, etc. The latter includes defense invalidity system and the system of exchanging evidence, etc. Furthermore, the suggestions focus on the improvement of the elucidation right of the judge and amelioration of the concerned parties obtaining evidences, such as the system of ordering the production of document to the qualified party and the obligation of collaboration between the concerned parties, etc.