Research On Regulation Of Abuse Of Jurisdiction Objection In Civil Litigation

Since 1991,China's Civil Procedure Code has stipulated the jurisdiction objection system,but with the great changes in China's social and economic environment,today,the original realistic basis on which the system is based has also undergone major changes.In recent years,the abuse of jurisdiction by the parties has been a common phenomenon in judicial practice,and it has become increasingly fierce.The main purpose of the parties' abuse of jurisdiction objection is to delay the litigation rather than change the jurisdiction of the case.This type of abuse deliberately hinders the progress of the case and seriously reduces the efficiency of the litigation.Being artificially dragged into the non-essential objection review process makes the already limited judicial resources useless.Examining the operation of the jurisdictional objection system in judicial practice,we can find that the number of jurisdictional objection cases has increased dramatically in recent years,and the judgment results of the cases show a high rejection rate,high appeal rate in the first instance,and high maintenance in the second instance.Rate characteristics.Observing the distribution of cases of objections,many types of cases where it is not difficult to determine jurisdiction have become a high-risk area for filing objections to jurisdiction.In reality,the adjudication organ's tolerance for malicious abuse of jurisdiction objections is getting lower and lower.In recent years,there have been a number of cases in which the parties are subject to judicial punishment due to jurisdiction abuse.Tracing the origin of these disciplinary cases,observing the details of the jurisdictional opposition cases involved,you can sort out and summarize some typical abuses of jurisdictional oppositions.The main types are: repeated jurisdictional oppositions in the same type of cases,and fictional jurisdictional connection points It is obviously improper to raise jurisdiction objections,disregard lawful jurisdiction agreements,raise jurisdiction objections,disregard exclusive jurisdiction,and raise jurisdiction objections.In-depth analysis of the causes of the abuse of jurisdiction objections,in addition to the lack of social integrity construction,we should also note that there are institutional problems behind this phenomenon.The reasons for objection decision areexcessive remedy for appeal,lack of conditional restrictions for filing an objection to jurisdiction,lack of participation of parties in the objection review process,extremely low cost for filing an objection to jurisdiction,and lack of filtering mechanism at the objection acceptance stage.The current system for regulating objections to abuse of jurisdiction has quite a short board.The specific manifestation is that the regulatory means are relatively simple and the regulatory effect is limited.It is difficult to curb the increasing abuse.Although the judicial organs in various regions have issued regulations for the review of jurisdictional disputes in their respective regions,it is practically difficult to curb abuse if the jurisdictional disputes system at the legal level has not been adjusted.Civil procedure doctrines such as the principle of good faith,the prohibition of abuse of rights and the principle of procedural efficiency are important in regulating abusive jurisdictional objections.The guiding role should be to enrich the embodiment of its principles in the jurisdictional objection system and to seek theories for regulating the abuse of jurisdictional objection.Basis.An important prerequisite for discussing how to regulate abusive jurisdictional challenges is the ability to define what kinds of jurisdictional challenges are abusive.By taking into account the bases on which courts have found abuse in judicial disciplinary cases and the typical types of abuse that have been compiled,it will be possible to identify the types of abuses by grasping the details of the and characteristics,one can try to summarize the identification criteria for abuse of jurisdiction objections,mainly from the subjective intention of the objector,objective behavior,conduct The four aspects of jurisdictional objection are the change of interests and whether the act violates the objective purpose of rights.Based on the dilemma faced by the current jurisdictional objection system,judicial interpretation should be issued to adjust the existing jurisdictional objection system.Specifically,the legislation should refine the conditions for filing an objection application,strengthen the responsibility of the objector to file an objection,and add a hearing review mode.Increase the participation of parties in the review process;place specific limits on typical abuses and,if necessary,withhold objections to their applications.review;adjusting the standard for litigation costs in jurisdictional objection cases,subject to theimprovement of the jurisdictional objection review process;establishing the jurisdictional objection The risk explanation mechanism will guide the parties to exercise their right to jurisdictional objection in good faith;relying on the construction of intelligent courts,innovative working methods,building a convenient Online case referral channels to improve the efficiency of reviewing jurisdictional objection cases.