民事抗诉工作中检察机关调查取证权问题研究-民事诉讼法学专业毕业论文.docxVIP

内容摘要 检察机关在民事抗诉工作中的调查取证活动是证明生效裁判合法与否的重要手段， 是检察机关履行法律监督职能防止审判权滥用的必要保障。2012 年 8 月 31 日全国人大 常委会新修订的《民事诉讼法》确立了这项制度，但规定比较原则，目前法检两院司法 解释各行其是，甚至相互冲突，很多省市民事行政检察部门也针对民事检察调查取证权 制定了不同的操作规范，加之理论界对民事抗诉工作中检察机关调查取证权的概念、性 质、适用范围、证据效力以及制度存废都存在不同认识，导致民事检察实践中出现检察 人员滥用调查取证权过度干涉私权、检察机关怠于调查取证以致法院错误裁判严重不公 却得不到纠正、法检两院因检察机关调取证据的效力问题发生矛盾冲突等现象。 本文在对昆明市检察机关民事检察实务开展调查研究的基础上，结合自己从事民事 行政检察工作的体验，对相关问题作了初浅研究和探讨。论文概述部分首先厘清民事抗 诉工作中检察机关调查取证权的概念、性质，然后简要介绍了我国民事抗诉工作中检察 机关调查取证权的思想和制度渊源。在研究检察机关民事抗诉工作中的调查取证权立法 现状和昆明地区实际运行情况的基础上，笔者梳理了其中存在的问题，主要体现在立法 缺失和实践混乱等方面。之后，文章引出理论界对民事抗诉工作中检察机关调查取证权 的争议，在对这些观点进行评析后，笔者提出赋予民事抗诉工作中检察机关调查取证权 有必要但应合理规制的观点。文章最后，笔者从尊重民事诉讼监督规律、满足司法实务 需求的角度出发，提出构建和完善民事抗诉工作中检察机关调查取证权的立法建议。 关键词：民事抗诉；调查取证；问题；立法建议 1 1 2 2 Abstract Investigation and evidence collection activities of the prosecution in the civil protest of work that is proved effective referee legal or not, activities are the procuratorial organs to fulfill the function of legal supervision necessary safeguards to prevent the abuse of judicial power.The Standing Committee of the National Peoples Congress revise the Code of Civil Procedure Act establishes the system in August 31, 2012, but the provision of the comparison principle the bicameral judicial interpretation of the law review their own ways, and even conflicting. Many provinces and cities in the civil and administrative prosecution service developed different practices for civil prosecution investigation and evidence collection rights, combined with theoretical circles on the concept of the right to investigate and collect evidence of procuratorial organs in the work of civil protest, the nature, scope, evidence of effectiveness, as well as system abolition of all there is a different understanding, leading to civil prosecution practice in prosecutorial personnel in the abuse of the right to investigate and collect evidence of excessive interference in private rights, the procuratorial organs delay in investigation and evidence so that the court erred referee grave injustice