英国民事执行权的运行与控制

发布时间：2018-04-24 16:50

本文选题：民事执行权 + 运行　；参考：《华东政法大学》2015年博士论文

【摘要】：民事执行制度是民事司法制度的重要组成部分,也是民众观察、判断司法是否公正的主要方面。从历史维度上着眼,民事执行的真正制度化直到近代才得以实现,随着民事执行程序的独立化,民事执行权的运行有效地扩展了效力范围,并试图达到执行效率与公正的精致结合。然而在实践中,传统的民事执行制度存在着许多不完善之处,大量的生效裁判未能得以执行,执行体制的运行问题日益突出。立足于自身的不同状况,每个国家和地区启动民事执行改革的诱因并不完全相同。但是,当不同国家和地区面对“执行难、执行乱”的世界性社会问题时,都将缓解民事执行压力的期许倾注于民事执行制度的有效性之上,为此采取了诸多方式去改革、重塑或调整自身的民事执行制度,英国便是其中的典型例证。作为“沃尔夫改革”的延续,英国原司法大臣办公厅自1998年起发动了立志于重塑及修正本国民事执行制度的改革活动。推出一系列关于执行体制和执行程序的咨询建议报告,以评估现有执行体制的有效性为目标,开始在民事司法改革的整体框架下对执行制度进行大刀阔斧的改革,力图“向有效执行奋进”。从价值层面对英国民事执行改革活动进行分析,能够清晰地发现改革过程中所包含的目的价值与形式价值之间的共生互动。由于民事执行权是最集中体现执行程序特征的要素,在民事执行改革的过程中,只有在以追寻民事执行权运行的目的价值为取向,同时恪守民事执行权保障私权实现功能的底线,建立完善的民事执行运行及控制机制,才能在合理、有序的框架下推进民事执行改革的实现,本文即由此阐发。本文通过四个部分的内容言简意赅地探讨英国民事执行程序中出现的主要问题,并试图从历史与现实、改革与发展、原理与结构、规则与判例的多重进路触及英国民事执行权运行和控制机制的内在精神。文章开篇对英国民事执行权等基本概念进行了界定,这是由于在考察民事执行权如何运行及控制时,应将英国民事执行权的性质作为整个民事执行权逻辑进程的起点,从而防止整个民事执行程序从根本上背离执行权的特性。为了全面展现英国民事执行权运行与控制的全貌,本文以广义的民事执行权为研究对象,这一权力包含执行实施权与执行裁决权两部分。其中,执行实施权包含英国2007年《裁判所、法院与强制执行法》明确规定的由非法院的执行机构行使的通过控制财产和变价出售的方式追收债务“强制执行权”,以及法院所实施的通过“诉讼化”的方式逐步推进执行措施的权力。正是由于英国民事执行权内部存在这样的职能分离,使得其兼具司法权与行政权的双重属性。英国民事执行制度的发展,如果没有创新与改革的接力,一直固守于传统,是不可能承载英美法系民事执行制度的历史,从而开创了大量民事执行制度先河的。由此,第一章将民事执行制度放置于英国历史的基本脉络中予以定位。盎格鲁—撒克逊时期的英国民事执行制度深受古日耳曼法的影响,民事执行措施由早期的扣押对方财物制度发展而来。而英国中世纪特别是普通法形成和发展时期的民事执行程序规则至今仍有部分继续适用,从普通法、制定法及衡平法中确立的这些规则可以窥见英国民事执行制度从自力救济到自力救济与公力救济相结合、从纷乱混杂到条理清晰的发展脉络。中世纪民事执行制度对英国民事执行实践产生了重要影响,然而从18世纪后半期开始,“没有令状,就没有救济”的民事司法现状越来越不适应迅速发展变化的经济、政治形势的需要,而衡平法诉讼程序在很多方面仍保留有中世纪的特征,古老而僵化,在案件审理上的严重拖延,促使英国于19世纪开展了司法改革。随着1875年《司法条例》改革的实现以及郡法院自1846年创建以来的发展,在民事执行领域也摒弃了形式主义的弊端,在完善原有制度的基础之上,确立了一系列新的执行措施,为英国现代化民事执行制度奠定了基础。至20世纪90年代,英国民事司法制度的发展仍然面临着费用高昂、诉讼延迟、程序复杂繁琐以及术语晦涩难懂等多重障碍,公众对司法的不满有增无减,新一轮的司法改革——“沃尔夫改革”在这一背景下拉开帷幕。此次改革虽未涉及民事执行制度,但却成为英国民事执行改革的催化剂,原司法大臣办公厅实施了一系列较为全面和彻底的咨询审查,目的在于在法律制度层面增强强制执行程序的有效性以最终实现现代社会所期望的判决获得执行与保护弱势群体之间的平衡。民事执行权的运行过程是否科学以及规范程度如何关系到民事执行权行使的效率、功能及产生的实际效用,本文第二章通过考察英国民事执行权运行的常规面向,旨在揭示英国民事执行权运行的价值追求所在。由于民事执行实施权在民事执行权中始终占据主导地位,强制执行以快速、及时、不间断地实现生效法律文书中所确认的债权为己任,民事执行权的运行价值应当注重体现效率。在这一前提下,民事执行权在运行中,公正和效率价值各有侧重。英国民事执行权运行的常规面向,包括运行主体、运行模式、运行保障、运行效率及运行费用。英国民事执行权的运行主要通过法院与执行机构的二元主体共同实现,法院享有签发令状及监督执行重大事项的权力,而执行机构在获得令状后,被赋予了实施执行行为的权力,执行当事人在不服法官对执行重大事项的裁决时享有上诉的权利,这样的程序设置,实际上形成了以司法权制约行政权、以上诉程序制约司法权的监督制约机制,实现了完整意义上的审执分离。在运行模式方面,基于民事诉讼传统模式的影响,英国民事执行权的运行不可避免地推行当事人主义模式,执行程序的选择权掌握在债权人手中,由债权人自主地选择执行措施,而这一模式却也极易使债权人处于更加不利的境地——执行程序推进缓慢最终判决无法获得有效执行。但是,执行权在各单项执行措施实施时也并不总是消极的,近年来英国通过民事执行改革逐步弱化了执行程序的当事人主义因素,试图吸收职权主义的合理内核,以逐步消除民事执行权运行中当事人主义的弊端。在运行保障方面,为使针对债务人的制裁机制更加完善,英国一方面基于债务人不能偿还债务的原因将其分为两类,即“偿还不能”的债务人与“不愿偿还”的债务人,并加以区别对待;另一方面,对“不愿偿还”的恶意债务人设置相应的威慑机制,以保障民事执行权的顺利运行。在民事执行权运行的效率方面,英国通过增强法院在民事执行中的主动性,转变了法院在民事执行程序中的职能,通过强化信息披露义务及完善债务人询问程序畅通了执行信息获取的渠道,并且简化了法律术语及申请执行程序,这些措施均为民事执行权运行效率的提高提供了程序上的保障。英国民事执行权运行的费用是平衡执行法律关系中各方主体利益的另一关键性问题,由于债权人、债务人以及执行人员对自身利益的考虑不同,其对英国执行费用体制的诉求存在较大差异,为解决债务人与执行机构针对费用标准、费用收取的透明度以及费用制度被滥用的可能性方面产生的多重争议,英国陆续开展了一系列民事执行费用体制改革,通过设置执行费用“上限”、引入更加灵活的债务收集程序等措施来改善民事执行权运行过程中所产生的利益失衡问题。任何权力的行使都不可避免地存在滥用的可能,民事执行权的行使也不例外,如果不对民事执行权进行必要的控制,必然会对执行当事人以及案外第三人的合法权益造成威胁,更遑论保障执行权的有效运行。这一问题在英国的民事执行领域表现得尤为突出,本文第三章则重点考察英国民事执行权的控制机制。英国执行权的控制遵循了公权对私权保障的原则,限制自力救济的适用,在英国民事执行改革中,就自力救济性质的欠租扣押制度的存废问题进行了专门审查,经过多年论证最终在2007年颁布的《裁判所、法院与强制执行法》中明确废除了普通法上适用于住所的欠租扣押财物制度。然而,在执行过程中,很有可能因种种原因产生对执行当事人或第三人合法权益造成侵害的情形,英国的民事执行程序赋予了执行当事人、利害关系人以及案外人在其私权遭到侵害时的救济途径。英国执行权的控制还遵循了利益衡量的原则,由于英国民事执行权在运行过程中关涉主体之间的利益关系纵横交错、颇为复杂,对此,英国通过推行民事执行改革,适当协调民事执行程序所涵摄的不同类型的参与主体在公法或私法上的利益关系,一方面,注重执行机构所维系的强制执行权的权威性与其他利益主体私人利益之间的关系;另一方面,除维护强制执行权应有的权威性外,还必须保障民事执行权运行中各执行关涉主体之间的私人利益关系。在具体控制模式上,主要通过建立以权力制约民事执行权、以执行当事人和案外第三人的权利制约民事执行权、以科学及严密的程序制约民事执行权的形式,形成对民事执行权的三重控制机制,以改变权力过度集中、滥用执行行为和监督制约不力的局面。并且,英国法在强调分权与制约的同时,还辅之以权力之间的配合与协调,以满足执行效率的需要。此外,在欧洲一体化的影响下,英国的法律结构和内容都发生相当大的变化,作为其中一部分的民事执行法也有了新的内涵和外延,英国民事执行制度的制定法同样受到欧盟法的影响和挑战。英国民事执行程序所遭遇的困境以“执行难”和“执行乱”为强烈表征,但究其本质是民事执行权的运行和控制体制问题。本文第四章首先对英国现阶段推行的民事执行改革中所确立的民事执行权运行与控制机制进行了理性分析,包括以效率为价值追求、国家角色的定位、体制上的分权、追求利益平衡的现实价值和意义,以及基于民事执行权运行的当事人主义模式而在信息收集程序、私人执行部门监管、执行费用体制上存在的问题和缺陷。我国民事执行改革的启动与英国几乎是同步的,英国民事执行权与民事审判权实现了实质上、体制上的分离,在这一理念意义上与我国民事执行改革的进一步计划和导向十分契合。对于我国而言,在民事执行权的运行方面,科学设置执行员与法官的权限划分、建立高度信任的社会、调整国家在民间收债治理上的角色等方面将有助于全面治愈我国的“执行难”痼疾;而在民事执行权的控制方面,推进司法大部制下的分权制衡、保障人权、完善民事执行救济程序以及外部监督机制也将为改善我国的“执行乱”问题提供有效的途径。
[Abstract]:The civil execution system is an important part of the civil judicial system. It is also the main aspect of the public observation and the judgment of justice. From the historical dimension, the real institutionalization of civil execution has been realized until modern times. With the independence of the civil execution procedure, the operation of civil execution power extends the scope of effectiveness effectively. However, in practice, there are many imperfections in the traditional civil execution system, a large number of effective referees fail to carry out, and the operation of the executive system has become increasingly prominent. Based on the different conditions of its own, the incentives for civil execution reform in each country and region are not the cause. However, when different countries and regions face the world social problems that are "difficult to carry out and carry out", they all put the expectation of relieving the pressure of civil execution on the effectiveness of the civil execution system. Therefore, many ways have been taken to reform, remould or adjust the civil enforcement system. As a continuation of the "Wolf reform", the former Office of the former Minister of justice of the United Kingdom launched a reform campaign to reshape and amend its civil enforcement system since 1998. It launched a series of advisory recommendations on the implementation of the system and the implementation process, aiming at assessing the effectiveness of the existing executive system and starting in civil justice. In the overall framework of the reform, the executive system is reformed in a broad manner, trying to "strive for effective implementation". From the value layer, the analysis of the civil enforcement reform activities in the UK can clearly discover the mutual interaction between the goal value and the form value contained in the process of reform, as the civil enforcement power is the most concentrated expression. In the process of civil execution reform, only in the process of civil execution reform, only in the pursuit of the goal value of the operation of civil enforcement power, while scrupulously abides by the civil enforcement power to guarantee the bottom line of the realization of the function of private rights, and establishes a perfect civil execution and control mechanism, can the civil execution reform be promoted under a reasonable and orderly framework. Through the content of the four parts, this article discusses the main problems in the British civil execution procedure, and tries to touch the inner spirit of the British civil enforcement and control mechanism from the multiple approaches of history and reality, reform and development, principle and structure, rules and precedents. The basic concepts of civil enforcement power in Britain are defined. This is due to the fact that the nature of the civil execution right should be the starting point of the whole civil execution right in the investigation of the operation and control of civil enforcement power, so as to prevent the whole civil execution from fundamentally deviating from the Executive power. The full view of the operation and control of the civil enforcement power, this article takes the broad civil execution right as the research object, which includes two parts: the executive power and the enforcement of the ruling power. Among them, the implementation of the right to implementation includes the control of property exercised by the non court executor and the enforcement agencies of the United Kingdom in 2007, the court and the enforcement law. The way of changing the price for sale is to recover the "enforcement power" of the debt, and the power of the court to step up the implementation measures by "litigation". It is because of the separation of such functions within the civil enforcement power of the UK that it has dual attributes of both judicial power and administrative power. Without the relay of innovation and reform, it has always adhered to the tradition, it is impossible to carry the history of the civil enforcement system in Anglo American legal system, thus initiating a large number of civil enforcement systems. The action system was deeply influenced by the ancient Germanic law. The civil enforcement measures were developed from the early seizure of the property system of the other side. And the rules of civil execution in the period of the formation and development of the medieval England, especially the ordinary law, still have some continued application. These rules can be seen from the common law, the formulation law and the equitable law. The civil execution system, from self relief to self relief and public relief, has been mixed from chaos to clear and clear development. The civil enforcement system in the middle ages has an important influence on the practice of civil enforcement in the UK. However, the civil judicial status of "no writ, no relief" has become more and more discomfort since the second half of the eighteenth Century. The needs of the changing economy and political situation should be rapidly developed, and the procedural procedures of equity still retain the characteristics of the Middle Ages in many respects, ancient and rigid, and the serious delay in the trial of the cases prompted the UK to carry out judicial reform in nineteenth Century. With the implementation of the 1875 "judicial regulation" reform and the establishment of the county court since its founding in 1846 In the field of civil execution, the development of civil enforcement has also abandoned the malpractice of formalism. On the basis of perfecting the original system, a series of new implementation measures have been established to lay the foundation for the modern civil enforcement system in Britain. By 1990s, the development of the civil judicial system in Britain still faced high cost, delay in litigation and complicated procedure. A new round of judicial reform, "Wolf reform", has been opened in this context. Although the reform does not involve the civil enforcement system, it has become a catalyst for the reform of civil enforcement in the UK, and the office of the former Minister of justice has carried out a series of cases. A more comprehensive and thorough consultation examination aims to enhance the effectiveness of the enforcement procedure at the legal system level so as to achieve the balance between the execution and protection of the vulnerable groups in the final judgment of the modern society. Whether the operation of the civil enforcement power is scientific and how the rules of the rule of Fan Chengdu relate to the exercise of civil enforcement power. The second chapter of this paper aims to reveal the value pursuit of the operation of British civil enforcement power by examining the general orientation of the operation of civil enforcement power in the UK. The creditor's right recognized in the law document is his duty, and the operational value of the civil execution right should be paid attention to the efficiency. Under this premise, the civil execution power has its own emphasis on the value of justice and efficiency in operation. The regular orientation of the operation of civil enforcement power in Britain includes the main body of operation, operation mode, operation guarantee, operation efficiency and operating cost. The operation of civil enforcement power is realized mainly through the two yuan main body of the court and the executive agency. The court has the power to issue a writ and supervise the execution of important matters, and the executive body, after obtaining a writ, has been given the power to implement the execution of the execution, and the litigants enjoy appeals in the case of the adjudication officer's ruling on the execution of major matters. The right, such procedure setting, actually forms the supervision and restriction mechanism that restricts the administrative power with the judicial power and restricts the judicial power by the appeal procedure, and realizes the complete separation of the adjudicatory separation. In the operation mode, the operation of the civil enforcement power inevitably carries out the litigant model based on the influence of the traditional mode of civil litigation. The option of the execution procedure is in the hands of the creditor and the creditor chooses to carry out the measures independently, but this model is also very easy to make the creditor in a more unfavorable situation - the final decision of the execution process is not effective. However, the implementation is not always negative when implementing the individual implementation measures. In recent years, Britain has gradually weakened the litigant factors of the execution procedure through the civil enforcement reform, trying to absorb the rational core of the power doctrine so as to gradually eliminate the malpractice of the litigant in the operation of the civil enforcement power. In the aspect of operation guarantee, in order to make the mechanism of the debtor more perfect, Britain is based on the debtor on the one hand. The reason why the debt cannot be repaid is divided into two categories, that is, the debtor who is not able to repay the debt and the "unwilling" debtor to be treated differently; on the other hand, a corresponding deterrent mechanism is set up for the "unwilling" malicious debtor to guarantee the CIS operation of the civil enforcement power. By strengthening the initiative of the court in the civil execution, the state has changed the function of the court in the civil execution procedure. Through strengthening the obligation of information disclosure and perfecting the debtor's inquiry procedure, it has opened the channels for the execution of information, and simplifies the legal terms and application procedures. These measures are all of the efficiency of the civil execution. The cost of the operation of civil enforcement power in Britain is another key issue of balancing the interests of all parties in the legal relationship. Because the creditors, debtors and executors have different considerations of their own interests, there is a great difference in the demand for the British executive cost system, in order to solve the debtor and the execution. In terms of cost standards, transparency of fees and the possibility of misuse of the cost system, a series of civil execution cost reforms have been carried out in Britain. By setting up the "upper limit" and introducing more flexible debt collection procedures to improve the operational process of civil execution The problem of Interest Imbalance arising from the exercise of any power inevitably has the possibility of abuse, and the exercise of civil execution is no exception. If the necessary control of the civil enforcement power is not carried out, it will inevitably threaten the lawful rights and interests of the parties to be executed and the third persons outside the case, let alone the effective operation of the guarantee of the executive power. This problem is particularly prominent in the field of civil enforcement in Britain. The third chapter of this paper focuses on the control mechanism of the British civil enforcement power. The control of the British executive power follows the principle of public power to private rights and the application of self relief. In the civil enforcement reform of Britain, the system of arrears and arrears of self relief nature is carried out in the reform of the British civil execution. The issue of storage and abolition has been specially examined. After years of demonstration, the court and enforcement law, which was promulgated in 2007, have clearly abolished the system of arrears and detainment in the ordinary law. However, it is likely to cause a violation of the legal rights and interests of the parties to the party or the third party in the process of execution. In the case of the civil enforcement procedure, the British civil enforcement procedure gives the remedy to the parties, the interested parties and the outsiders when their private rights are infringed. The control of the British executive power also follows the principle of interest measurement, which is quite complicated because the interests of the British civil enforcement power are interlocked in the process of operation. In this regard, through the implementation of civil enforcement reform and the appropriate coordination of civil execution procedures, the different types of stakeholders involved in the public law or private law, on the one hand, pay more attention to the relationship between the authority of the enforcement authority and the private interests of other stakeholders; on the other hand, to maintain the enforcement of the compulsion. In addition to the authority of the right to act, the private interests between the subjects involved in the operation of civil rights must be guaranteed. In the specific mode of control, the civil enforcement power is restricted by the establishment of power to restrict the rights of the civil execution by the rights of the parties and the third persons outside the case, and the civil enforcement is restricted by the scientific and strict procedures. The form of the right to act forms the three control mechanism of the civil enforcement power, in order to change the situation of excessive concentration of power, misuse of execution and supervision and restriction. Meanwhile, the British law, while emphasizing decentralization and restriction, also complemented the coordination and coordination of power to meet the needs of efficiency. In addition, the influence of European Integration The legal structure and content of the United Kingdom have undergone considerable changes. As a part of it, the civil enforcement law also has a new connotation and denotation.

【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D956.1

【共引文献】