英美国家诉讼限制令对我国虚假诉讼治理的启示

目前我国虚假诉讼司法治理机制存在规制手段相对单调、惩戒机制长效性有限、治理理念局部轻重失衡等问题。为解决前述问题,贯彻宽严相济理念,鉴于法治精神和基本原理的互通性与传导性,英美国家“诉讼限制令”制度可为我国提供有益参考。“诉讼限制令”本质是一种必要惩戒与诉讼风险防范化解机制,仅在原自由起诉模式下,“嵌入” 法院对诉讼黑名单人员的再起诉必要、合理的审查许可要求,而其余流程与规则不变,彰显民事诉讼国家干预理念,有助实现社会公共利益与个人利益、自由起诉与诉讼风险管控之间的协调平衡。“诉讼限制令”制度本身也存在丰富的适用层级与梯度,在引入我国时应保持与既有惩戒惩罚机制的合理衔接。

Enlightenment of Litigation Restriaining Order in British andAmerican Countries on the Governance of False Litigation in China

At present, there are some problems in the judicial governance mechanism of false litigation in China, such as relatively monotonous regulatory means, limited long-term effectiveness of the disciplinary mechanism, and partial imbalance of governance concepts. In order to solve the above problems and implement the concept of tempering justice with mercy, in view of the intercommunication and conductivity of the spirit of the rule of law and the basic principles, the system of “restraining order” in British and American countries can provide a useful reference for China. The essence of “restraining order” is a necessary punishment and litigation risk prevention and resolution mechanism. It is only in the original free prosecution mode, the court's necessary and reasonable review and permission requirements for the prosecution of blacklisted persons are “embedded”, while the remaining processes and rules remain unchanged, highlighting the concept of state intervention in civil litigation, and helping to achieve the coordination and balance between social public interests and personal interests, free prosecution and litigation risk management and control. The system of “restraining order” itself also has rich applicable levels and gradients. When it is introduced into China, a reasonable connection with the existing disciplinary mechanism is required.