On The Identification Of Repeated Civil Suits

In the civil litigation activities,the litigants often abuse their litigation rights by changing the number of litigants,changing the litigation claims and so on.This will not only increase the litigation costs of the other party,but also may cause the court to make contradictory judgments and waste judicial resources.In order to avoid this situation,we should effectively identify civil repeated prosecution according to reasonable standards in order to regulate it.Article 247 of the interpretation on the application of the civil procedure law promulgated by the supreme people's court on January 30,2015 explicitly listed duplicate prosecution as the object of rules for the first time,and explicitly stated that duplicate prosecution is prohibited.Meanwhile,it also stipulated the three requirements for identifying duplicate civil prosecution and the ways in which the court deals with duplicate prosecution.Although the rules to fill the gaps in legislation on repeated prosecution regulation,but due to the lack of regulations on identification of the three elements of civil repeated prosecution detailed explanation,theoretical and practical circles and the understanding of related elements,which makes the judges when faced with a relatively complex cases,repeated can only according to article 247 of the civil prosecution for accurate identification.Therefore,by defining the connotation of civil repeated prosecution and combining with the current situation of legislation and judicature of this system in China,this paper analyzes the existing problems in the identification of repeated prosecution.At the same time,by referring to relevant theories and theories,this paper hopes to put forward some opinions and suggestions on the identification of repeated prosecution.This paper includes three parts: introduction,text and conclusion.The text consists of four parts:The first part: mainly is about the civil repeat prosecution the outline.First of all,through the analysis of relevant theories,it is made clear that civil repeated prosecution should include two situations: "repeated prosecution with the formerlawsuit in the lawsuit category" and "repeated prosecution with the former lawsuit judgment in effect".Secondly,this paper makes a comparative analysis of the prohibition of civil repeated prosecution,non bis in idem and res judicata,clarifies the relationship between the concepts,and further defines the research object of this paper.Finally,from the harm of civil repeated prosecution,discusses the necessity of identification of repeated prosecution.The second part: the extraterritorial investigation of the identification of civil repeated prosecution.This paper expounds the system and theory related to the identification of repeat prosecution in civil law system and common law system.Through the analysis and comparison of relevant theories,this paper seeks for the experience that our country can use for reference,hoping to be helpful to the improvement of our country's repeated prosecution identification.The third part: the current situation analysis of our country civil repeated prosecution identification.Based on the analysis of the current situation of the identification of duplicate prosecution in legislation in China(especially the identification standard of duplicate prosecution stipulated in the interpretation of the applicable civil procedure law promulgated by the supreme people's court in 2015)and the current judicial practice,the existing problems in the identification of duplicate prosecution in China are found out.The fourth part: the author puts forward some Suggestions on how to improve the identification of civil repeated prosecution in China.This part aims at the above problems existing in China's repeated prosecution identification.The author suggests to construct the theory of litigation in our country,to refine the standard of the identification of civil repeated prosecution(to identify the civil repeated prosecution by using the relative theory of the object of action),and to strengthen the interpretation obligation of the judge,so as to avoid damaging the litigant's litigation interests because of the identification of repeated prosecution.