CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES ORDINANCE

作者:法律资料网 时间:2024-06-26 15:07:27   浏览:8048   来源:法律资料网
下载地址: 点击此处下载

CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES ORDINANCE ——附加英文版

Hong Kong


CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES ORDINANCE
 (CHAPTER 71)
 CONTENTS
  
  ion
  I    PRELIMINARY
  hort title
  nterpretation and application
  he "reasonableness" test
  Dealing as consumer"
  arieties of exemption clause
  ower to amend Schedules 1 and 2
  II    CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES
  dance of liability for negligence, breach of contract, etc.
  egligence liability
  iability arising in contract
  nreasonable indemnity clauses Liability arising from sale or
supply of
  s
  "Guarantee" of consumer goods
  Seller's liability
  Miscellaneous contracts under which goods pass Other provisions
about
  racts
  Effect of breach on "reasonableness" test
  Evasion by means of secondary contract
  Arbitration agreements
  III   CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE CONTROL DOES NOT APPLY
  International supply contracts
  Choice of law clauses
  Saving for other relevant legislation
  Application
  IV    CONSEQUENTIAL AND OTHER AMENDMENTS
  (Omitted)
  dule 1. Scope of sections 7, 8, 9 and 12
  dule 2. "Guidelines" for application of reasonableness test
  dule 3. (Omitted)
 Whole document
  
  imit the extent to which civil liability for breach of contract, 
or
  negligence or other breach of duty, can be avoided by 
means of
  ract terms and otherwise; and to restrict the 
enforceability of
  tration agreements. [1 December 1990] L. N. 38 of 1990
 PART I PRELIMINARY
  
  hort title
  Ordinance may be cited as the Control of Exemption Clauses
Ordinance.
  nterpretation and application
  In this Ordinance--
  iness" includes a profession and the activities of a public 
body, a
  ic authority, or a board, commission, committee or 
other body
  inted by the Governor or Government;
  ds" has the same meaning as in the Sale of Goods Ordinance (Cap.
26);
  ligence" means the breach--
  of any obligation, arising from the express or implied terms 
of a
  ract, to take reasonable care or exercise reasonable skill 
in the
  ormance of the contract;
  of any common law duty to take reasonable care or exercise 
reasonable
  l (but not any stricter duty);
  of the common duty of care imposed by the Occupiers 
Liability
  nance (Cap. 314); "notice" includes an announcement, whether or
not in
  hing, and any other communication or pretended communication;
  sonal injury" includes any disease and any impairment of 
physical or
  al condition.
  In the case of both contract and tort, sections 7 to 12 apply 
(except
  e the contrary is stated in section 11 (4)) only to 
business
  ility, that is liability for breach of obligations or duties
arising--
  from things done or omitted to be done by a person in the course
of a
  ness (whether his own business or another's); or
  from the occupation of premises used for business purposes 
of the
  pier, and references to liability are to be read 
accordingly; but
  ility of an occupier of premises for breach of an obligation or 
duty
  rds a person obtaining access to the premises for 
recreational or
  ational purposes, being liability for loss or damage 
suffered by
  on of the dangerous state of the premises, is not a business
liability
  he occupier unless granting that person such access for the 
purposes
  erned falls within the business purposes of the occupier.
  In relation to any breach of duty or obligation, it is 
immaterial
  her the breach was inadvertent or intentional, or whether 
liability
  it arises directly or vicariously.
  1977 c. 50 ss. 1&14 U. K.]
  he "reasonableness" test
  In relation to a contract term, the requirement of reasonableness 
for
  purposes of this Ordinance and section 4 of the 
Misrepresentation
  nance (Cap. 284) is satisfied only if the court or 
arbitrator
  rmines that the term was a fair and reasonable one to be 
included
  ng regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably
to have
  , known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the 
contract
  made.
  In determining for the purposes of section 11 or 12 whether a
contract
  satisfies the requirement of reasonableness, the court or 
arbitrator
  l have regard in particular to the matters specified in 
Schedule 2;
  this subsection does not prevent the court or arbitrator from
holding,
  ccordance with any rule of law, that a term which purports to 
exclude
  estrict any relevant liability is not a term of the contract.
  
  In relation to a notice (not being a notice having 
contractual
  ct), the requirement of reasonableness under this 
Ordinance is
  sfied only if the court or arbitrator determines that it would
be fair
  reasonable to allow reliance on it, having regard to 
all the
  umstances obtaining when the liability arose or (but for the 
notice)
  d have arisen.
  In determining (under this Ordinance or the 
Misrepresentation
  nance (Cap. 284)) whether a contract term or notice 
satisfies the
  irement of reasonableness, the court or arbitrator shall have 
regard
  articular (but without prejudice to subsection (2) to whether
(and, if
  to what extent) the language in which the term or notice is 
expressed
  language understood by the person as against whom another 
person
  s to rely upon the term or notice.
  Where by reference to a contract term or notice a person 
seeks to
  rict liability to a specified sum of money, and the question
arises
  er this Ordinance or the Misrepresentation Ordinance (Cap. 
284))
  her the term or notice satisfies the requirement of 
reasonableness,
  court or arbitrator shall have regard in particular (but 
without
  udice to subsection (2) or (4)) to--
  the resources which he could expect to be available to him for 
the
  ose of meeting the liability should it arise; and
  how far it was open to him to cover himself by insurance.
  It is for the person claiming that a contract term or notice
satisfies
  requirement of reasonableness to prove that it does.
  1977 c. 50 s. 11 U. K.]
  Dealing as consumer"
  A party to a contract "deals as consumer" in relation to another
party
  
  he neither makes the contract in the course of a business nor 
holds
  elf out as doing so;
  the other party does make the contract in the course of a 
business;
  
  in the case of a contract governed by the law of sale of goods 
or by
  ion 12, the goods passing under or in pursuance of the contract
are of
  pe ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption.
  Notwithstanding subsection (1), on a sale by auction or by
competitive
  er the buyer is not in any circumstances to be regarded as dealing 
as
  umer.
  It is for the person claiming that a party does not deal as 
consumer
  rove that he does not.
  1977 c. 50 s. 12 U. K.]
  
  arieties of exemption clause
  To the extent that this Ordinance prevents the 
exclusion  or
  riction of any liability it also prevents--
  making the liability or its enforcement subject to 
restrictive or
  ous conditions;
  excluding or restricting any right or remedy in respect 
of the
  ility, or subjecting a person to any prejudice in consequence of 
his
  uing any such right or remedy;
  excluding or restricting rules of evidence or procedure, and (to 
that
  nt) sections 7, 10, 11 and 12 also prevent excluding or 
restricting
  ility by reference to terms and notices which  exclude  or 
restrict
  relevant obligation or duty.
  An agreement in writing to submit present or future 
differences to
  tration is not to be treated under this Ordinance as 
excluding or
  ricting any liability. [cf. 1977 c. 50 s. 13 U. K.]
  ower to amend Schedules 1 and 2
  Legislative Council may by resolution amend Schedules 1 and 2.
 PART II CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES
  
  dance of liability for negligence, breach of contract, etc.
  egligence liability
  A person cannot by reference to any contract term or to a notice
given
  ersons generally or to particular persons exclude or 
restrict his
  ility for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.
  In the case of other loss or damage, a person cannot so 
exclude or
  rict his liability for negligence except in so far as the 
term or
  ce satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
  Where a contract term or notice purports to exclude or 
restrict
  ility for negligence a person's agreement to or awareness of it
is not
  tself to be taken as indicating his voluntary acceptance of any
risk.
  1977 c. 50 s. 2 U. K.]
  iability arising in contract
  This section applies as between contracting parties where one of 
them
  s as consumer or on the other's written standard terms of
business.
  As against that party, the other cannot by reference to any 
contract
  --
  When himself in breach of contract, exclude or restrict any 
liability
  is in respect of the breach; or
  claim to be entitled--
  to render a contractual performance substantially different from 
that
  h was reasonably expected of him; or
  in respect of the whole or any part of his contractual obligation,
to
  er no performance at all,
  pt in so far as (in any of the cases mentioned above 
in this
  ection) the contract term satisfies the requirement of
reasonableness.
  1977 c. 50 s. 3 U. K.]
  nreasonable indemnity clauses
  A person dealing as consumer cannot by reference to any contract 
term
  ade to indemnify another person (whether a party to the 
contract or
  in respect of liability that may be incurred by the 
other for
  igence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract 
term
  sfies the requirement of reasonableness.
  This section applies whether the liability in question--
  is directly that of the person to be indemnified or is incurred
by him
  riously;
  is to the person dealing as consumer or to someone else. [cf. 1977 
c.
  . 4 U. K.]
  ility arising from sale or supply of goods
  
  "Guarantee" of consumer goods
  In the case of goods of a type ordinarily supplied for private
use or
  umption, where loss or damage--
  arises from the goods proving defective while in consumer use;
and
  results from the negligence of a person concerned in the 
manufacture
  istribution of the goods, liability for the loss or damage 
cannot be
  uded or restricted by reference to any contract term or 
notice
  ained in or operating by reference to a guarantee of the goods.
  For these purposes--
  goods are to be regarded as "in consumer use" when a person is 
using
  , or has them in his possession for use, otherwise than 
exclusively
  the purposes of a business; and
  anything in writing is a guarantee if it contains or 
purports to
  ain some promise or assurance (however worded or 
presented) that
  cts will be made good by complete or partial replacement, 
or by
  ir, monetary compensation or otherwise.
  This section does not apply as between the parties to a contract
under
  n pursuance of which possession or ownership of the goods passed.
  1977 c. 50 s. 5 U. K.]
  Seller's liability
  Liability for breach of the obligations arising from section 14
of the
  of Goods Ordinance (Cap. 26) (seller's implied undertakings 
as to
  e, etc.) cannot be excluded or restricted by reference to any
contract
  .
  As against a person dealing as consumer, liability for breach of 
the
  gations arising from section 15, 16 or 17 of the Sale of 
Goods
  nance (Cap. 26) (seller's implied undertakings as to 
conformity of
  s with description or sample, or as to their quality or fitness
for a
  icular purpose) cannot be excluded or restricted by reference to 
any
  ract term.
  As against a person dealing otherwise than as consumer, the 
liability
  ified in subsection (2) can be excluded or restricted by reference 
to
  ntract term, but only in so far as the term satisfies the 
requirement
  easonableness.
  The liabilities referred to in this section are not only the 
business
  ilities defined by section 2 (2), but include those arising under 
any
  ract of sale of goods. [cf. 1977 c. 50 s. 6 U. K.]
  Miscellaneous contracts under which goods pass
  Where the possession or ownership of goods passes 
under or in
  uance of a contract not governed by the law of sale of 
goods,
  ection (2) to (4) apply in relation to the effect (if any) that 
the
  t or arbitrator is to give to contract terms excluding or 
restricting
  ility for breach of obligation arising by implication of law from 
the
  re of the contract.
  As against a person dealing as consumer, liability in respect of 
the
  's correspondence with description or sample, or their 
quality or
  ess for any particular purpose, cannot be excluded or 
restricted by
  rence to any such term.
  As against a person dealing otherwise than as consumer, that
liability
  be excluded or restricted by reference to such a term, but only
in so
  as the term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
  
  Liability in respect of--
  the right to transfer ownership of the goods, or give possession;
or
  the assurance of quiet possession to a person taking 
goods in
  uance of the contract, cannot be excluded or restricted by 
reference
  ny such term except in so far as the term satisfies the requirement
of
  onableness. [cf. 1977 c. 50 s. 7 U. K.]
  r provisions about contracts
  Effect of breach on "reasonableness" test
  Where for reliance upon it a contract term has to 
satisfy the
  irement of reasonableness, it may be found to do so and be 
given
  ct accordingly notwithstanding that the contract has been 
terminated
  er by breach or by a party electing to treat it as repudiated.
  Where on a breach the contract is nevertheless affirmed by a 
party
  tled to treat as repudiated, this does not of itself 
exclude the
  irement of reasonableness in relation to any contract term.
  1977 c. 50 s. 9 U. K.]
  Evasion by means of secondary contract
  rson is not bound by any contract term prejudicing or taking 
away
  ts of his which arise under, or in connection with the performance
of,
  her contract, so far as those rights extend to the 
enforcement of
  her's liability which this Ordinance prevents that 
other  from
  uding or restricting.
  1977 c. 50 s. 10 U. K.]
  Arbitration agreements
  As against a person dealing as consumer, an agreement to submit
future
  erences to arbitration cannot be enforced except--
  with his written consent signified after the differences in 
question
  arisen; or
  where he has himself had recourse to arbitration in pursuance of 
the
  ement in respect of any differences.
  Subsection (1) does not affect--
  the enforcement of an international arbitration agreement 
within the
  ing of section 2 (1) of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 341);
  laced 76 of 1990 s. 2)
  the resolution of differences arising under any contract so far
as it
  by virtue of Schedule 1, excluded from the operation of section
7, 8,
  12.
 PART III CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE CONTROL DOES NOT APPLY
  
  International supply contracts
  The limits imposed by this Ordinance on the extent to which a 
person
  exclude or restrict liability by reference to a contract term do 
not
  y to liability arising under an international supply contract.
  The terms of an international supply contract are not subject to 
any
  irement of reasonableness under section 8 or 9.
  For the purposes of this section, an international supply 
contract
  s a contract--
  that is either a contract of sale of goods or a contract under 
or in
  uance of which the possession or ownership of goods passes;
  that is made by parties whose places of business (or, if they 
have
  , habitual residences) are in the territories of different 
States or
  in and outside Hong Kong; and
  in the case of which--
  the goods in question are, at the time of the conclusion 
of the
  ract, in the course of carriage, or will be carried, 
from the
  itory of one State to the territory of another, or to or from 
Hong
  from or to a place outside Hong Kong; or
  the acts constituting the offer and acceptance have been done in 
the
  itories of different States or in and outside Hong Kong; or
  ) the contract provides for the goods to be delivered to the
territory
  State other than that within whose territory the acts 
constituting
  offer and acceptance were done; or
  the acts constituting the offer and acceptance were done in Hong
Kong
  the contract provides for the goods to be delivered outside Hong
Kong;
  
  the acts constituting the offer and acceptance were done outside 
Hong
  and the contract provides for the goods to be delivered to Hong
Kong.
  1977 c. 50 s. 26 U. K.]
  Choice of law clauses
  Where the proper law of a contract is the law of Hong Kong only 
by
  ce of the parties (and apart from that choice would be the law
of some
  r country) sections 7 to 12 do not operate as part of the proper
law.
  This Ordinance has effect notwithstanding any contract 
term which
  ies or purports to apply the law of some other country, where 
(either
  oth)--
  the term appears to the court or arbitrator to have been 
imposed
  ly or mainly for the purpose of enabling the party imposing 
it to
  e the operation of this Ordinance; or
  in the making of the contract one of the parties dealt as 
consumer,
  he was then habitually resident in Hong Kong, and the essential 

不分页显示   总共2页  1 [2]

  下一页

下载地址: 点击此处下载
中国企业海外回款管理与分析

阚凤军


  一、海外客户资信、背景及交易真实性了解与分析,强化过程管理
  1、企业需要了解海外客户的资信及基本背景:某些大客户,比如像沃尔玛、通用等大客户,其背景及资信比较好,可信度比较好,但也不能完全因为对方的整体实力而完全相信之。其他一些比较小的客户或初步建立商业关系的客户,中国企业需要从多角度考察与了解该客户的有关情况。当然,很多企业缺乏了解境外客户的手段与渠道,但必须建立起“了解对方”的意识,这是中国企业风险管理的基本起点和要求。
  2、企业需要了解海外客户的交易的真实性。某些国际大公司打着总公司的旗号,但实际签约主体并非总公司,而是其某一个国家子公司,甚至是空壳公司。有关公司与中国企业签约之前告知其是采购商和使用方,但实际的情况是其仅仅是重点代理公司或某集团海外采购避税的导管公司,该公司没有实际资产,只是跨国公司进行海外税务安排的工具。某些BVI公司甚至成为欺诈中国公司,骗取货物的工具。
  3、企业内部需要关注重点客户资信的变化情况。我们需要清醒认识到,即使是美国的通用,其某些子公司也是有倒闭的危险。因此,需要时刻关注每一个重点客户的资信变化情况,世界某知名的电信企业在海外应收款管理中就积极关注每一个国家重点客户财务及运营情况,并根据相关结论调整营销策略等,降低坏账几率。
  4、非经常性客户或初步建立业务联系的客户,需要了解该客户的基础信息,企业可以根据自身情况建立有关了解渠道与手段。中国企业绝不能因为境外公司的采购金额大、愿景美好等轻信境外企业,仍然需要按照的流程,了解该公司的基本情况。
  5、企业需要提升整体风险防范意识与手段,并贯彻信用风险制度,全面改善海外应收账款风险的前端管理。

  二、强化与客户的沟通,及时了解和掌握回款动态
  1、中国应该建立起合同跟踪体系,即有专人跟进合同的执行情况,并进行预警分析。比如,某一期合同款项尚未到账,需要分析原因,并进行核实确认相关原因;
  2、加强与海外客户的沟通。有些时候,客户可能并没有故意拖延付款,而是因为客户本身管理不是很到位,没有及时安排付款事宜,导致付款延误。另外,中国企业应该提高沟通与谈判技巧,通过电话、邮件等方式有效沟通,必要时到客户所在地进行拜访。
  3、提高沟通的能力与效果。海外营销人员不仅熟练掌握客户国家的语言,还应该了解和理解该国家的文化、风俗习惯、商业惯例等。一旦你了解该国的办事习惯与风格,你可以运用上述信息进行沟通,传递压力,提高回款催收的效果。

  三、回款措施分级管理,有序施压
  1、中国企业回款催收主体基本都是由业务员主导的,在催款过程中,基本上是由跟单业务员通过邮件的方式与海外客户的采购人员联系。这种催收方式的效果非常有限,特别是对于那些想拖延付款、甚至赖账的客户而言,他人基本都不会认真对待中国企业的邮件信息;
  2、中国企业可以通过催收主体的变化,比如业务员、部门经理、事业部经理、公司总经理等层级,传递企业的重视态度及问题的严重性;
  3、中国企业在必要时,可以提升事态的等级,即可以策略性地向对方高级管理人员传递信息,反馈中国企业的态度,推进对方反馈信息的有效性。

  四、加强应收账款账龄管理
  1、一些企业缺乏应收账款的管理经验。某些国外客户应收账款延长6个月,甚至到一年之久,国内客户仍然没有采取有效措施,导致回款工作进展非常慢;
  2、根据国外信用管理机构的分数据,在美国,当账款逾期6个月的时候,企业成功收回的可能性仅为50%左右,而在中国,即使账龄达到1年甚至以上,企业收回账款的可能性也并不低于50%。因此,企业必须对海外应收账款的帐龄保持高度敏感性。、
  3、企业建立应收帐款管理机制。根据客户的资信评估、应收账款的金额、客户所在国家整体经济情况、应收账款的延迟期限、对方关于应收账款问题解决的态度等,分类管理,并制定有针对性的应对措施。

  五、及时借助外部专业资源与力量
  1、聘请本国及境外律师对应收账款进行法律上的定性与定量分析;
  2、通过境外律师进行催收;
  3、启动海外诉讼程序。中国公司需要认识,诉讼在很多时候并不是目的,而是一种策略或手段。事实上,很多国外的客户,如果中国公司一旦通过专业力量进行追讨或起诉,基本上都会认真应对,加速回款成功回收的可能性。


阚凤军 广州安华理达律师事务所 020-28337942/13924073030
试论法官释明权
李 健 鹏

摘 要

本文的研究对象是法官释明权。当前,随着我国民事审判方式改革的深入,民事诉讼模式在由职权主义向当事人主义转换的同时,应当构建规范完善的法官释明权制度,克服完全放任当事人主导诉讼过程所造成的诉讼迟延、难以实现实质正义等缺陷,保障民事诉讼目的得以实现。但是,我国立法尚未建立明确规范的法官释明权制度,司法实践虽积极探索,但处于无法可依、各自为阵的局面,法官释明权的效能未能得以正确有效发挥。为此,本文从法官释明权的发展脉络、含义、性质、价值功能等方面阐述法官释明权的基本理论,深入分析法官释明权在我国的立法、理论研究和司法实践现状以及存在的问题弊端,从而提出从法官释明权的立法模式、行使原则、适用范围、行使阶段、行使方法、效力和救济机制等方面构建规范完善的法官释明权制度。
关键词:法官释明权;释明权行使;制度完善

引 言
法官释明权在西方民事诉讼中具有十分重要的意义和作用。西方民事诉讼实行当事人主义诉讼模式,集中体现了辩论主义和处分主义原则。纯粹的当事人主义诉讼模式,过分强调当事人的处分权,忽略甚至完全放开法官对诉讼程序的掌控,使得裁判为了片面追求形式上的平等,而最终难以实现实质正义。法官释明权则具有弥补这些弊端的价值功能。我国原先的民事诉讼模式是职权主义,但随着民事审判方式改革的深入推进,逐步转变为当事人主义,新的审判方式突出了法官的中立和被动,强化当事人的处分权,弱化法官的职权,充分体现了司法的文明进步。但由于当事人对法律和诉讼的认知水平、操作能力层次不一,导致新的审判方式的理想状态在现实中遇到了障碍。法官释明权作为平衡当事人诉讼能力和水平、促进实现实质正义的一种手段,进入了法学界的研究视野,并在司法实践中得以不断尝试。本文拟通过对法官释明权制度的考察研究,提出构建我国法官释明权制度的设想。

一、法官释明权的基本理论
(一)法官释明权的发展脉络
1、大陆法系
释明权制度最初是德国等大陆法系国家为克服法国1806年民事诉讼法的自由放任倾向,即为消除法院不协助当事人进行诉讼的古典主义弊端而提出来的诉讼指挥权制度。[1] 1806年法国民事诉讼法,确定了当事人在民事诉讼中享有充分的处分权和实行辨论主义的原则。1877年德国民事诉讼法借鉴了法国民事诉讼法的模式。但德国同时意识到,只强调突出当事人的处分权,忽略法官指挥诉讼的作用,既会影响诉讼效率,甚至可能造成司法不公。因此,德国1877年民事诉讼法规定了法官释明权。该法第130条规定:审判长应当向当事人发问,释明不明确的声明,促使当事人补充陈述不完整的事实,声明证据,进行其他与确定事实关系所必要的陈述。审判长应当依职权要求当事人对应当斟酌,并尚存疑点的事项加以注意。1877年德国民事诉讼法沿用至今,进行了多次修改,现行民事诉讼法中第139条对法官释明权作了更详细的规定。该法第139条规定:(1)审判长应该让当事人就所有重要的事实进行充分的陈述,尤其在对所提事实说明不充分时要加以补充,还要说明证据。为此,审判长在必要时应与当事人共同从事实和法律两方面对于事实关系和法律关系进行阐明,并提出发问。(2)审判长对于应当依职权进行调查的事项中存在的疑点,应予注意。(3)审判长在其他审判人员要求时,应当允许其发问。[2] 1890年的日本民事诉讼法也规定了法官释明权,虽然在二战后受美国法的影响法官怠于行使释明权,但因暴露出各种弊端,法官释明权得以重新确立。德国、日本等国民事诉讼法的制定,促使了法国对1806年民事诉讼法进行了修改,对当事人和法院在诉讼中的地位及作用进行了调整。[3] 1935年,法国发布了《监督诉讼程序的法官》的法令,明确规定法官对诉讼有监督和控制权,现行法国民事诉讼法在第8条、第13条也分别规定了法官释明权的内容。综上,大陆法系国家的法官释明权是随着各国对当事人主义诉讼模式的修正而逐步建立发展起来的,历经司法实践在立法中不断充实完善。
2、英美法系
英美法系国家奉行典型的当事人主义,强调当事人的对抗,法官不允许控制诉讼,从而造成诉讼效率低下等弊端。因此,英美法系国家吸收借鉴了大陆法系的法官释明权制度,逐步强化法官在诉讼程序的掌控和管理。英国1999年颁布的《新民事诉讼法规则》,规定了法官可以命令当事人将有争议的事项陈述清楚,提供与争点相关的证据。美国《民事诉讼规则》规定了法官在审前阶段可以依职权审议的事项,加强了法官对诉讼的管理和控制。虽然英美两国民事诉讼立法中没有释明权的概念,但这些规定实际就是加强法官诉讼管理职能的体现,是法官释明权的一种表现。
纵观两大法系民事诉讼立法中法官释明权的引入和发展,他们对释明权制度的必要性的认识和需求是统一的,都认为法官应当加强诉讼引导和管理职能。
(二)法官释明权的含义
德国学者奥特马•尧厄尼希认为,法官释明权是法官的发问和释明义务,即法官不仅应当接受当事人的陈述,而且也应当督促当事人完整陈述,达到澄清事实的目的。[4]日本学者谷口安平认为,释明权是法官对当事者进行询问,要求其作出解释说明的权限。[5]
我国学者从不同角度出发,对释明权确定的含义有两种类型。一是从释明权的行使目的和性质出发,认为释明权是法官为了查清事实、公正裁判而询问当事人和向当事人提出建议的权限。二是从释明权的适用事项和行使方式出发,认为释明权是指在当事人的主张或陈述不完整、不明确,或者诉讼主张不适当,或者举证不够而误认为足够了的情况下,法官通过对当事人的发问、建议、提醒,促使当事人清楚完整的陈述事实,修正不当的诉讼主张,补足证据资料。
笔者认为,释明权是指在民事诉讼过程中,法官发现当事人的诉讼请求不适当,或陈述事实不清楚、不完整,或提供证据资料不够却误以为已经足够,或其法律观点与法官不一致时,法官从探知当事人真意、查清案件事实、使当事人理解法官观点的角度出发,通过发问、晓喻和公开心证等方式,使当事人厘清请求和事实、提供完备的证据、明了法官的观点,阐述或修正自己的观点,从而保障诉讼公开、公平、公正的权能。
(三)法官释明权的性质
关于释明权的性质主要有三种观点:即义务说、权利说和权利兼义务说。大陆法系民事诉讼立法例上也因此定位不同,有将其定位为权能,有将其定位为义务对待,也有既认定为权能,又认定为义务。[6]
采用义务说的主要以德国为代表。如《德国民事诉讼法》第139条规定:“审判长应该让当事人就所有重要的事实进行充分的陈述,尤其在对所提事实说明不充分时要加以补充,还要说明证据。为此,审判长在必要时应与当事人共同从事实和法律两方面对于事实关系和法律关系进行阐明,并提出发问。”从这一规定看,“应当”的表述,将释明权定位为法官的一项义务。
采用权利说的主要以法国为代表。如《法国民事诉讼法》第8条规定:“法官可以要求当事人对事实提供必要的说明。”从这一规定看,“可以”的表述,将释明权定位为法官的一项权利,法官可以自由行使。
采用权利兼义务说的主要以日本为代表。如日本《民事诉讼法》第112条规定:“审判长可以对事实上以及法律上的事项向当事人发问或促使当事人声明证据。”但同时,日本关于证据的职权调查制度,又规定了法官有义务通过调查查明案件事实。日本立法中“可以”和“有义务”的表述,实际是将释明权既当作一种权利又当作一种义务。
笔者认为,释明权是民事诉讼中法院的职权,属于诉讼指挥权的范畴。诉讼指挥权是指法院为保证诉讼程序的顺利进行,根据具体情况作适当处置,从而控制、指挥诉讼程序运行的权能。[7]在民事诉讼中,法院的诉讼指挥权有指挥程序的运作、操作审理程序及内容、指挥法庭辩论、行使释明权明确诉讼关系等。[8]释明权作为诉讼指挥权的一种,当然属于公权力的范畴,具有公权力权能与义务兼备的性质。法官释明权的行使不取决于当事人的意志,法官有一定的自由裁量因素,体现了权力的属性;但释明权的行使又受到诉讼程序规定的限制和当事人诉讼权利的制约,体现了义务的属性。
(四)法官释明权的价值功能
1、保障民事诉讼目的得以实现。民事诉讼的目的在于“通过司法实现私权”,即通过国家公权力解决具体民事纠纷,保障私人民事权益的最终实现。民事诉讼过程体现了公权力与私权利的碰撞与交汇,处理好这两者的关系才能更好地实现民事诉讼的目的。[9]释明权的适当行使,正是作为诉讼指挥权的公权力介入,对私权利进行合理引导的一种方式,有利于公正解决争议,最终实现私权。也因此,释明权被称为实现民事诉讼制度目的的修正器。[10]
2、促进实现实质正义。“民事诉讼的价值取向直接影响民事诉讼的制度选择。”[11]无庸置疑,我国民事诉讼的首要价值取向一直是追求实质正义。在纯粹的当事人主义诉讼模式下,当事人的请求、主张或陈述不适当、不明确或不完整,法官只能消极作出裁判,这往往难以实现实质正义。在我国这样一个人口众多,且文化水平和知识素养以及法律意识都参差不齐的环境里,如果只追求形式上的平等,法官消极无为,那么只会造成实质上的不平等,更无法实现实质正义。法官行使释明权,引导当事人诉讼,可以弥补当事人主义诉讼模式片面追求形式平等的不足,使诉讼双方在“民事诉讼战争”中能够维护“武器平等”的状态,[12],有利于促进实质正义的实现。
3、提高诉讼效率。久长的裁判是恶的裁判,诉讼过分迟延等同于拒绝裁判。不幸的是,诉讼迟延的问题困扰着许多国家;事实上,诉讼迟延是由此产生的抱怨与程序改革企图之间的不断循环的主题。[13]释明权是法官行使诉讼指挥权的一项重要内容,是法官有序控制和推进诉讼程序的一种方式,释明权的行使可使当事人明确表述其主张和请求,可使当事人明晰焦点,紧紧围绕焦点陈述、举证和辩论,有助于提高诉讼效率,避免诉讼迟延,缩短诉讼周期,减少当事人诉累。
4、促进法院与当事人之间的交流与沟通,避免突袭裁判。我国有学者指出:“程序是与程序主体的自由、自主地选择联系在一起的,程序的本质特点就是过程性和交涉性。诉讼程序是交涉过程的制度化。这一交涉过程也是程序主体相互交流、作用的过程,它包括权利主体与权力主体之间的纵向沟通过程和权利主体之间的横向沟通过程。”[14]当事人主义诉讼模式下,只有双方当事人之间的横向交流,缺乏法官与当事人之间的纵向交流。法官释明权的行使,搭建起了法官与当事人交流沟通的平台,有助于法官与当事人在争点确定、事实认定等方面达成共识,有助于让法官探明当事人的真意,让当事人知悉法官的心证和法律观点,避免突袭裁判[15]。
5、解决缠诉缠访“司法顽症”。[16]近年来,缠诉缠访已成为困扰人民法院工作的“司法顽症”,其背后有着深层次的体制机制原因,需要多途径加以逐步解决。法官释明权既是引起缠诉缠访问题的一个重要因素,也是从源头上预防和减少缠诉缠访问题的有效方法。由于立法上的滞后,法官在司法实践中行使释明权时尺度不一,暴露出了过度释明或消极释明的问题,导致当事人对裁判的公正性产生合理怀疑,甚至导致裁判错误,当事人因此开始从上诉、信访逐步演变为缠诉缠访。但这并不是要说明法官行使释明权的局限性和危害性,相反,释明权引起缠诉缠访问题的主要原因在于立法滞后导致不当行使,只有尽快在立法中明确设立规范的法官释明权制度,使法官有法可依、有度可把,正确地行使释明权,不但有助于查清事实、公正裁判,更能促使当事人真正理解和信服裁判的理由和依据,胜败皆服,案结事了,息诉罢访。因此,释明权是预防和减少涉诉信访,解决“缠诉缠访”司法顽症的有效途径。

二、法官释明权在我国的现状分析
(一)法官释明权在我国的立法现状
2001年12月31日,最高人民法院发布了《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》(以下简称《证据规定》),这是释明权在我国立法中的首次体现。《证据规定》虽然强调了当事人举证的主导作用,限制了法官依职权调查取证,但却要求法官要引导当事人举证。《证据规定》第3条第1款规定:“人民法院应当向当事人说明举证的要求及法律后果,促使当事人在合理期限内积极、全面、正确、诚实地完成举证”。第8条第2款规定:“对一方当事人陈述的事实,另一方当事人既未表示承认也未否认,经审判人员充分说明并询问后,仍不明确表示肯定或者否定的,视为对该项事实的承认”。第35条第1款:“诉讼过程中,当事人主张的法律关系的性质或者民事行为的效力与人民法院根据案件事实做出的认定不一致的,不受本规定第三十四条的限制,人民法院应当告知当事人可以变更诉讼请求”。
继《证据规定》之后,最高人民法院出台的其他一些司法解释中也有法官释明权的体现。2003年7月最高人民法院《关于适用简易程序审理民事案件的若干规定》第20条规定,“对没有委托律师代理诉讼的当事人,审判人员应当对回避、自认、举证责任等相关内容向其作必要的解释或者说明,并在庭审过程中适当提示当事人正确行使诉讼权利、履行诉讼义务,指导当事人进行正常的诉讼活动”。最高人民法院《关于审理人身损害赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第5条第2款规定,“人民法院应当将放弃诉讼请求的法律后果告知赔偿权利人,并将放弃诉讼请求的情况在法律文书中叙明。”
上述规定虽然体现了法官释明权的内容,但并不能说明我国立法上已经建立起了真正意见上的规范完善的法官释明权制度。制度这一概念,通常被用来表示种种内在联系着的社会规则给人们的相互作用以一定的方向并使之定型化。[17] 而我国关于法官释明权的规定,零散的分布在若干个司法解释中,既没有明确的释明权这一概念,也没有规范完善的立法形式,更未能形成一个有机的整体。
(二)法官释明权在我国的理论研究现状
法官释明权不是我国传统的民事诉讼概念,故其引入和设立必然要经历一个从陌生到了解、熟识、认可的理论论证过程。上世纪90年代初,我国较早研究法官释明权问题的学者认为,在我国这样职权主导的诉讼体制中没有可能引入阐明权。[18]随着我国民事审判司法改革的推进,有学者认为,法官释明权是为了克服当事人主义的弊端,发挥法官对诉讼的掌控和引导作用,而我国的民事审判司法改革是要削弱法官的职权,两者是冲突的。但有学者对此观点持不同认识,认为释明权“并不是基于法院拥有调查和查明案件客观真实的权限而产生的职权,而是法院为明了当事人所主张的请求和事实情况而对其主张和举证活动加以引导的一种诉讼程序上的指挥权”。[19]随着《证据规定》等相关司法解释的出台,尤其是2005年以来,再次掀起了一波对法官释明权研究的高潮。[20] 尤其到了2007年修改《民事诉讼法》前后,理论界对法官释明权的研究达到了前所未有的高潮,不断涌现的理论著作与论文成果对我国引入法官释明权的必要性进行了充分论证,意在使法官释明权纳入新修改的《民事诉讼法》。虽然新修改的《民事诉讼法》并未引入和设立法官释明权,但理论研究并未因此中断。相反,我国对法官释明权的理论研究进一步深入,研究的重点已从引入法官释明权制度的应然性问题转向规范完善我国法官释明权制度的实然性问题,如释明权的性质和原则,行使的阶段、范围、方式以及救济机制等问题。理论研究不但远远的走在了立法的前面,同时对各地法院的司法实践也起到了有效的引导作用。但是,我国对释明权的引入和研究尚处于搭建释明权制度基本架构的初级阶段,对于释明权制度本身及配套制度的研究还有待于向纵深发展。
(三)法官释明权在我国的司法实践现状
从实践层面看,各级人民法院已有不少对法官释明权进行了有益的探索和尝试,客观上形成了与理论研究相互推动、并轨发展的有利格局。
北京市一中院早在2004年即出台了关于“法官释明权制度”的规则,自这一规则实施后,该院民事案件调撤率不断上升。2009年,北京市一中院再次将法官释明权问题作为重点调研课题,经调研改进完善了该院的法官释明权制度,对法官行使释明权的基本原则、事项范围、具体方式、具体时机作出了明确规定。[21]杭州市中级人民法院积极探索尝试法官行使释明权,但由于立法缺失,该院2008年调研发现,释明不规范直接影响审判的法律效果和社会效果,法官对案件做了不同的释明,可能造成原告多次撤诉、无所适从的情况,或因释明不到位导致当事人不服败诉后果,或因错误运用释明权,导致未审先判而被当事人投诉。[22]2009年,山东昌邑市人民法院全面推行判前提示判后释疑制度,制定具体规则,对原则、对象、内容、范围、监督等作出严格规定,要求法官在判决前后用通俗易懂的语言,围绕当事人双方争执的焦点,说道理、讲法律,阐述法官认定证据的逻辑推理过程以及判决结论形成的理由。该制度实行当年,昌邑市法院的上诉率、申诉率、上访率同比分别下降18%、21%和25%。判前提示判后释疑是法官行使释明权的重要形式之一。山西省太原市迎泽区人民法院积极探索法官释明权制度,确定了法官行使释明权应当遵循的原则和应当适用的情形。
笔者所在的新疆高级法院兵团分院,虽未明确提出释明权这一概念,但却实行了实为行使释明权的一系列措施,出台了实为行使释明权的有关制度。如,在立案阶段向当事人免费发放《诉讼权利义务须知》、《诉讼风险提示书》、《举证须知》等,告知当事人诉讼权利和义务,指导当事人举证,引导当事人诉讼。在审理阶段要求法官公开心证,既让当事人有积极应对的机会或败诉的心理准备,又便于促成和解。在制作裁判文书时要求法官使用通俗易懂,易于群众理解的语言。在宣判时要求法官对裁判的理由和依据向当事人进行具体详细的说明,并做当事人的服判息诉工作。在裁判生效后,如当事人提出申请再审,则由做出生效裁判的合议庭和承办人先行判后答疑,针对当事人提出的疑问,详细解释证据认定和不予采纳其主张的理由,从法理和法律适用上说明裁判结果依据。此外,还制定出台了《兵团人民法院关于判后答疑工作的暂行规定》、《兵团人民法院立案工作实施细则》等一系列涉及法官释明权内容的制度。
各地法院虽然对法官释明权进行了有益的探索和实践,但也暴露出一些不容忽视、亟待解决的问题。一些法官过度行使释明权,对当事人已经处分的民事权利或已经承认的案件事实,还反复进行诱导性追问,既影响了诉讼效率,又引起当事人的合理怀疑,有的甚至导致错案。一些法官消极行使释明权,对当事人的不当陈述、主张不作必要的释明,对当事人的举证不加以引导,直接认定案件事实,形成突袭裁判。当然,这既有法官司法能力不强的因素,也有司法不公的案外因素。此外,由于法官释明权的立法缺失,司法实践出现了比较混乱的局面,例如,举证指导在全国各地法院的具体操作不尽相同,名称也不一致。有的称为“举证须知”(如浙江、河南高院等),有的称为“举证通知”(如广东高院),还有的称为“举证指导”(如宁波中院)。[23]
实践证明,引入和设立法官释明权制度是公正权威高效司法的客观要求和现实需要,立法对释明权制度作出系统全面的规定已经刻不容缓。
(四)我国法官释明权制度存在的问题和弊端
1、有实无名,法律位阶低。虽然有关司法解释不同程度地体现了法官释明权的内容,说明我国司法改革在注重提高当事人地位的同时并没有忽视和放弃法官对诉讼程序的控制和引导,且在司法实践中各地法院也积极探索、大胆实践、逐步规范,但我国民事诉讼法中并无法官释明权这一明确的概念和内容,司法解释亦未正名,且法律位阶低,这不但影响了法官释明权价值效能的发挥,也造成了比较混乱的司法实践局面。立法滞后,实践先于立法,实则就是有实无名,无法可依。因此,我国应尽快在民事诉讼法中创设法官释明权制度,在立法的层面对释明权制度进行系统全面的规定,从而为司法实践提供有力的法律依据。