浅议法院执行工作

本文旨在讨论民事执行问题,首先阐述当前法院在执行工作中存在的问题,接着就法院执行中形成问题进行原因分析,最后提出一些相关的解决方法和措施。     

试论海峡两岸法院相互委托代为民事诉讼行为

作者认为,尽快建立海峡两岸法院之间相互委托代为民事诉讼行为的联系与协作,是进一步发展两岸关系和保护两岸人民合法权益的迫切需要。大陆民事诉讼法和台湾地区的强制执行法对法院之间相互委托代为送达、调查和执行都作了明确规定。两岸有关法院相互委托代为民事诉讼行为,是一个国家内法院之间的互助。不是国与国之间的司法协助。两岸法院应从维护两岸人民的合法权益和诉讼权利出发,在坚持“一个中国”的原则下,以务实的态度,共同寻求建立两岸法院相互委托代为送达、调查和执行的途径,并提出了自己的构想。     

关于委托执行工作中两个问题的批复

江苏省高级人民法院: 你院苏法研[1987]172号《关于委托执行工作中两个问题的请示》收悉。经研究,答复如下: 一、在委托执行中,受委托的人民法院认为委托法院委托执行的法律文书确有错误,应函请委托法院进行审查。在委托法院作出审查处理意见的答复     

法院执行收费制度怎么改

不久前,由最高人民法院主办的《人民法院报》就有关 人民法院在执行工作中的收费问题,连续刊发了两条消息:一是广东省规定,全省法院将申请执行费由传统的“事前收费”改为“事后收费”,并且将过去的收费基数由“申请执行数额”改为“实际执行数额”;二是当事人向山东省各级法院申请执行再也不用“预交”执行费了,该项费用改由法院垫付。在执行结案后,“申请执行费”由执行法院的财务部门从执行的款项中按规定扣收,执行中“实际支出的费用”凭有关票据扣收。     

委托执行应成为异地执行的一般原则

最高人民法院李国光副院长在１９９９年８月召开的全国高级人民法院院长座谈会上说：“委托执行是法律规定的一项重要执行制度。实行这一制度，有利于抵制地方和部门保护主义的干扰，提高执行工作效率。”笔者认为，委托执行应成为异地执行的一般原则。（一）委托执行有利于直接暴露并有效约束来自法院系统内的干扰和影响。通常认为，直接到异地去执行似乎比委托执行更能有效的抵制当地法院的地方保护主义，其实并非如此。因为在直接执行模式下，执行法院与当地法院之间是难以确立起基于法定程序而产生的协助关系。当地法院在表面可能超然置…     

基层法院执行难问题调查与思考

基层法院作为执行的主阵地,担负着全国80%的案件执行。但基层传统的文化背景、特殊的地缘关系使得基层法院的执行现状并不乐观,案件的实际执结率不尽人意。一、基层法院"执行难"极具代表性的三类案件第一,离婚案件。在农村离婚案件执行实务中,由于执行地点的特殊性(大多在被执行人住所中进行)、家族势力的参与性、农村社会舆论的影响等原因,极易造成当事人之间、当事人亲属之间的矛盾尖锐对立,引发事端,严重影响和阻碍了案件执行。其中涉及子女抚养权,探视权的执行案件难度尤为突出。     

委托执行不能“打水漂”

委托执行是指管辖法院依照法律规定,在不便直接执行的情况下,将案件委托外地法院代为执行的法律制度。在制度设计之初,委托执行便具有其天然的优势。其一,有利于提升执行效率。委托执行较于异地执行,避免了执行人员出差办案,大大节约了法院在执行过程中付出的人力、物力和时间;其二,有利于提高执行效果。     

基层法院的执行生态与非均衡执行

执行生态是指法院执行活动所处的环境和氛围,主要包括组织纵向生态、横向生态组成的法院内生态,以及政治生态、经济生态和社会生态组成的法院外生态。对基层法院的调研表明,当前执行工作面临的来自法院外生态的压力过大,这些压力包括政治生态的治理压力、经济生态的救济压力和社会生态的互动压力,而法院内部生态也在一定程度上加大了这些压力。执行生态的过重压力催生出法院对非均衡执行策略的需求与偏好,导致法院一方面通过终结本次执行及执行和解来规避压力,另一方面通过周期性启动运动式执行来缓解压力。非均衡执行策略容易诱发执行不规范现象,有损执行权威。要实现“切实解决执行难”的目标,需要改善执行生态,弱化法院对非均衡执行策略的需求,其中的关键是要建构社会场景下的执行权威,实现良性的执行生态与能动的均衡执行的相互促进。     

关于委托执行的调研

一、我省法院委托执行工作的基本情况和主要特点(一)我省法院委托执行案件的基本情况从调查统计情况看,近几年我省法院办理委托执行案件具有以下几个特点:1.委托执行案件数量占执行案件总量的比     

增强全局观念 相互协作配合——对全国法院集中清理委托执行积案的思考

增强全局观念相互协作配合———对全国法院集中清理委托执行积案的思考本刊记者戴建志去年底今年初，全国法院集中三个月时间对委托执行积案进行清理。在这期间，最高人民法院召开了全国高级法院院长会议，指出“地方保护主义和部门保护主义是执行工作的主要障碍”，要求...     

Introduction: Problem‐Solving Courts

Problem‐solving courts have become a significant feature of the U.S. justice system, and their popularity appears to be growing internationally with courts under way or in development in countries such as Australia and Great Britain. Drug courts are the most visible type of problem‐solving court, but other varieties are beginning to take hold. Mental health courts, domestic violence courts, and community‐based courts among others are beginning to handle a considerable portion of the legal workload in many jurisdictions. Criminal law violations as well as neighborhood conflicts and interpersonal disputes are increasingly being referred to problem‐solving courts rather than to traditional criminal or civil courts.     

The Courts in a Fragmented Criminal Justice System

The U.S. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice under President Johnson in 1967 outlined a central role for courts in the criminal justice system. That role, however, has been somewhat diminished by the dominance of plea bargaining and the legislative enactment of mandatory minimum sentences that limit judges’ discretion. At the same time, judges have become more involved in specialized courts dealing in cases involving drugs and mental illness. A major topic of concern is the lower courts, which in many areas have changed little since the 1960s Commission. In those places, the traditional adversary process is not operating well, with many defendants pleading guilty unnecessarily in a system that may be designed primarily to collect fees. In violent crime cases, the imposition of capital punishment remains a controversial issue for states that is not likely to be resolved by a new national commission. The central court functions of sentencing and overseeing plea bargains are discussed elsewhere in this volume.     

Specialized Domestic Violence Courts

Abstract

The multimethod study assesses the perceptions of specialized domestic violence courts' processes with victims' experiences as the central focus. Perceptions of the traditional courts and specialized domestic violence courts are compared among victims, courtroom police, attorneys, judges and victim advocates. Domestic violence education among attorneys, judges, and victim advocates is also compared. Despite the intended improvements with the specialized court model, victims report similar problems in both court models. Safety and victims support among respondents is mixed. Professionals from the specialized court receive no more domestic violence education than those from the general court. Victims' and courtroom police recommendations are presented.     

中国民事执行体制改革的模式选择——基于执行权组织构造的考量与分析

作为一种二重性的权力,民事执行权在结构要素上可分为执行实施权和执行裁决权两部分,据此民事执行权在组织构造上应该分别贯穿行政权和司法权的制度安排。迄今为止,中国民事执行体制改革的核心是通过设立执行局,在上下级法院之间形成统一领导的管理体制,这是一种内置式的改革模式。中国民事执行体制构建应该符合民事执行权自身的性质和组织、运行规律,尊重法院作为司法权载体的组织与程序构造要求,切合中国当代司法制度改革的整体目的。据此,在内置式改革模式已经得到相当充分的实践但依然没有从根本上解决执行难题的情况下,外放式的改革模式可成为中国当代民事执行体制进一步改革的必要选择。     

Adjudicating Executive Privilege: Federal Administrative Agencies and Deliberative Process Privilege Claims in U.S. District Courts

Government transparency is a key component of democratic accountability. The U.S. Congress and the president have created multiple legislative avenues to facilitate executive branch transparency with the public. However, when the executive branch withholds requested information from the public, the federal judiciary has the power to determine whether agencies must release documents and information to requestors. When enforcing standards of executive branch transparency, judges must balance concerns of executive autonomy and judicial intrusion into administrative decisionmaking. While much judicial scholarship focuses on the decisionmaking on high courts, in the U.S. context, federal district courts play a key role in adjudicating transparency disputes. In this article, I examine case outcomes in disputes involving agency claims of deliberative process privilege over internal agency documents litigated between 1994 and 2004. I find that U.S. federal district courts largely defer to administrative agencies in transparency disputes. However, factors such as agency structure and the congruence between judicial and administrative agency policy preferences influence whether federal judges require executive branch officials to release requested information.     

香港特区法院的违基审查权兼与董立坤、张淑钿二位教授商榷

特区立法机关应根据基本法制定法律,特区法院审查特区立法机关制定的法律是否违反基本法的权力被称为"违基审查权"。香港的普通法传统为特区法院的违基审查权提供了法理依据,特区的新法治秩序激活了普通法中法院的司法审查权,而全国人大常委会审查权的不完整性使特区法院的违基审查成为必要。司法实践表明,特区法院的违基审查权无法挑战全国人大常委会的审查权,对基本法的实施总体上是有利的;损害特区行政主导体制的主要因素并非是法院的违基审查,而是立法会的强势地位。作为植根于普通法传统、已有十多年运行实践的权力,特区法院的违基审查权无须再通过全国人大常委会释法确认。当然,基于其在特区法治秩序中的地位,特区法院违基审查权应受到特区外部与内部两方面的制约。     

地位与策略:“大调解”中的人民法院

本文是对当前部分地方推行的,力图追求法院在大调解中占据主导地位的本土实践的反思,并试图通过论述证明:法院在现有的制度环境下很难真正地扮演起大调解中的主导角色。这与执政党对法院的定位、社会公众对解纷机构的选择倾向和司法的固有限度息息相关。法院的这种角色决定了其在追求大调解格局主导地位过程中所采用的各种策略。这些策略的采用虽然极大提升了法院解决疑难纠纷的能力,但却同时进一步限制了法院对主导地位的追求。二律悖反的事实说明准确定位才是法院在大调解中发挥更大作用的基础和关键。     

法院政治功能的学理疏释

现代的法院制度与古代的相比,其区别主要不在于法院纯司法功能的变化,而在于司法与政治关系发生了实质性的嬗变。法院作为国家政治权力架构中的重要一环、法治得以实现的基本机关、民主制度的维持者与裁决者以及人民的法院,就必然要与政治发生关系,具有相应的政治功能,从而在权力分立的政治架构中,通过个案的审理与相关政治行为的判定,发挥着制约其他国家权力,规范权力运行秩序并维护宪政制度的功效。     

Who Wants Informal Courts? Paradoxical Evidence from a Yugoslav Attempt to Create Workers' Courts for Labor Cases

The comrades' courts of the East European socialist countries are considered by those who favor alternative means of dispute resolution to be admirable examples of informal courts in modern industrial societies. However, these courts have not been extensively investigated. This article presents the results of an intensive observational study of one kind of socialist alternative court, the Yugoslav Courts of Associated Labor, comparing them with an ideal model of informal courts and with the available data on comrades' courts in other East European socialist countries. We find that, in contrast with the latter, the Yugoslav courts are indeed workers' courts, in the sense that they are used by workers—over 90% of their cases are brought by individual workers. On the other hand, they are not workers' courts in the sense of being controlled by workers—they are instead dominated by legal professionals. We conclude that these Yugoslav courts are attractive to individual workers precisely because they are not informal, social courts, but rather are independent legal agencies from which workers may receive unprejudiced decisions and substantial remedies.     

德国法院体系探析

德国特色法院体系的形成与演变有其深刻的社会历史背景,首先是文化传统,其次是经济体制,第三是工人运动。德国的法院系统由宪法法院、普通法院和专门法院三类组成。宪法法院专门审理违宪案件;普通法院只审理刑事案件和民事案件;专门法院包括(普通)行政法院、财政法院、劳动法院、社会法院、专利法院、军事法院和惩戒法院等。除了(普通)法院和宪法法院具有独立地位外,其他法院均隶属于政府有关部门。德国行政审判权由各级行政法院与劳动法院、社会法院、财政法院等共同行使。专门法院的性质介于行政机关与司法机关之间,但行政机关的性质更多(本质上属于行政司法)。