cciia.org.cn 2018-2-23 15:31:58 法(fa)制日(ri)報——法(fa)制網
2月23日,最高人民(min)法(fa)院召開新聞發布會,發布《關(guan)(guan)于執(zhi)行和(he)解若(ruo)(ruo)干問題的規(gui)定》、《關(guan)(guan)于執(zhi)行擔保(bao)若(ruo)(ruo)干問題的規(gui)定》和(he)《關(guan)(guan)于人民(min)法(fa)院辦(ban)理(li)仲裁裁決執(zhi)行案件若(ruo)(ruo)干問題的規(gui)定》三個司法(fa)解釋。
最(zui)高(gao)人民法(fa)院執行局(ju)局(ju)長(chang)孟祥(xiang)對這三個執行司法(fa)解釋(shi)進行了解讀(du)。
一、《執行和解規定》的有關情況
執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)和(he)解(jie)(jie)是民事(shi)訴(su)訟法(fa)(fa)(fa)確立的(de)一(yi)項重(zhong)要制度,它既有(you)利于在一(yi)定程度上緩解(jie)(jie)“執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)難”,又是意思自(zi)治原則在民事(shi)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)階段的(de)體現,在強制執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)工(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)中一(yi)直(zhi)發揮(hui)(hui)著重(zhong)要作(zuo)(zuo)用。但(dan)由(you)于此前法(fa)(fa)(fa)律(lv)、司(si)法(fa)(fa)(fa)解(jie)(jie)釋(shi)有(you)關執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)和(he)解(jie)(jie)的(de)規定僅有(you)寥寥幾條,導致不少問題(ti)缺乏明確的(de)依據和(he)指引,實踐做法(fa)(fa)(fa)不一(yi),理論爭議較大。為充分發揮(hui)(hui)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)和(he)解(jie)(jie)的(de)制度效用,公(gong)正(zheng)處理執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)和(he)解(jie)(jie)糾(jiu)紛,提(ti)高司(si)法(fa)(fa)(fa)公(gong)信力,最高人民法(fa)(fa)(fa)院在總結執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)實踐經驗的(de)基(ji)礎上,出臺了這部司(si)法(fa)(fa)(fa)解(jie)(jie)釋(shi)。
《執行和解規定》共20個條文,重點解決以下(xia)五方面問題:
(一)明確(que)區分(fen)執行和(he)解與執行外和(he)解
根據(ju)民(min)事訴訟法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)第230條第1款(kuan),當事人(ren)(ren)(ren)自行達成(cheng)和(he)(he)(he)(he)解(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)協議,執(zhi)(zhi)行員將(jiang)協議內容記入(ru)筆(bi)錄,由雙方(fang)簽名或蓋章的(de)(de),成(cheng)立執(zhi)(zhi)行和(he)(he)(he)(he)解(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)。但(dan)法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)律、司法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)解(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)釋對于當事人(ren)(ren)(ren)私(si)下達成(cheng)的(de)(de)和(he)(he)(he)(he)解(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)協議是(shi)(shi)否構(gou)成(cheng)執(zhi)(zhi)行和(he)(he)(he)(he)解(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)、產(chan)生何種(zhong)法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)律效(xiao)果(guo)沒有明確規(gui)定(ding),導致(zhi)這一(yi)問(wen)題在司法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)實踐中(zhong)存(cun)在較大分(fen)歧,不同(tong)(tong)案件的(de)(de)認(ren)定(ding)結果(guo)可(ke)(ke)能截然相反。為統一(yi)司法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)尺(chi)度,《執(zhi)(zhi)行和(he)(he)(he)(he)解(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)規(gui)定(ding)》明確了執(zhi)(zhi)行和(he)(he)(he)(he)解(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)與執(zhi)(zhi)行外(wai)(wai)和(he)(he)(he)(he)解(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)的(de)(de)區分(fen)標準(zhun),并(bing)分(fen)別規(gui)定(ding)了不同(tong)(tong)的(de)(de)法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)律效(xiao)果(guo)。具體而言,執(zhi)(zhi)行和(he)(he)(he)(he)解(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)與執(zhi)(zhi)行外(wai)(wai)和(he)(he)(he)(he)解(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)的(de)(de)區別在于,當事人(ren)(ren)(ren)是(shi)(shi)否有使和(he)(he)(he)(he)解(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)協議直接對執(zhi)(zhi)行程序(xu)產(chan)生影響的(de)(de)意(yi)圖。換言之,即便(bian)是(shi)(shi)當事人(ren)(ren)(ren)私(si)下達成(cheng)的(de)(de)和(he)(he)(he)(he)解(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)協議,只要共同(tong)(tong)向人(ren)(ren)(ren)民(min)法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)院提(ti)交(jiao)(jiao)或者一(yi)方(fang)提(ti)交(jiao)(jiao)另一(yi)方(fang)認(ren)可(ke)(ke),就構(gou)成(cheng)執(zhi)(zhi)行和(he)(he)(he)(he)解(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie),人(ren)(ren)(ren)民(min)法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)院可(ke)(ke)以據(ju)此中(zhong)止執(zhi)(zhi)行。反之,如果(guo)雙方(fang)沒有將(jiang)私(si)下達成(cheng)的(de)(de)和(he)(he)(he)(he)解(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)協議提(ti)交(jiao)(jiao)給人(ren)(ren)(ren)民(min)法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)院的(de)(de)意(yi)思,那么和(he)(he)(he)(he)解(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)(jie)協議僅產(chan)生實體法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)效(xiao)果(guo),被執(zhi)(zhi)行人(ren)(ren)(ren)依據(ju)該協議要求中(zhong)止執(zhi)(zhi)行的(de)(de),需(xu)要另行提(ti)起執(zhi)(zhi)行異議。
(二)明確不得依據和解協議出具以物抵債裁定(ding)
司(si)法實踐中,對于能否依據執(zhi)行(xing)(xing)和(he)(he)解(jie)(jie)協議出具(ju)(ju)以物(wu)(wu)(wu)抵(di)債(zhai)裁(cai)(cai)定(ding),不(bu)同(tong)法院做法不(bu)同(tong),有(you)(you)的(de)(de)(de)不(bu)予出具(ju)(ju)裁(cai)(cai)定(ding),有(you)(you)的(de)(de)(de)不(bu)僅出裁(cai)(cai)定(ding),還協助辦理當(dang)事人(ren)辦理過(guo)戶手續。為統一(yi)法律適用,在(zai)充(chong)分調研、多方征求意見的(de)(de)(de)基礎上,《執(zhi)行(xing)(xing)和(he)(he)解(jie)(jie)規(gui)定(ding)》最(zui)終明(ming)確人(ren)民法院不(bu)得依據和(he)(he)解(jie)(jie)協議作(zuo)出以物(wu)(wu)(wu)抵(di)債(zhai)裁(cai)(cai)定(ding)。這樣(yang)規(gui)定(ding)的(de)(de)(de)主要理由是:一(yi)方面(mian),執(zhi)行(xing)(xing)和(he)(he)解(jie)(jie)協議本身并(bing)不(bu)具(ju)(ju)有(you)(you)強(qiang)制(zhi)執(zhi)行(xing)(xing)力,如(ru)果允許人(ren)民法院依據和(he)(he)解(jie)(jie)協議出具(ju)(ju)以物(wu)(wu)(wu)抵(di)債(zhai)裁(cai)(cai)定(ding),無異于強(qiang)制(zhi)執(zhi)行(xing)(xing)和(he)(he)解(jie)(jie)協議;另一(yi)方面(mian),以物(wu)(wu)(wu)抵(di)債(zhai)裁(cai)(cai)定(ding)可以直接導致物(wu)(wu)(wu)權變動,很(hen)容(rong)易損害被執(zhi)行(xing)(xing)人(ren)的(de)(de)(de)其他債(zhai)權人(ren)的(de)(de)(de)合法權益,實踐中此類糾(jiu)紛已經屢見不(bu)鮮,司(si)法解(jie)(jie)釋(shi)應當(dang)積極予以回應。
(三)明確申請執行人可以就執行和解協(xie)議提起訴訟
根據民事(shi)訴(su)訟法(fa)第230條第2款,達(da)成和(he)(he)(he)(he)(he)解協(xie)(xie)議(yi)(yi)后,被執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人不(bu)履(lv)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)義務(wu)(wu)的(de),申(shen)(shen)(shen)請(qing)(qing)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人可以(yi)(yi)要(yao)求恢(hui)(hui)復執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)。但對申(shen)(shen)(shen)請(qing)(qing)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人能否起(qi)訴(su)被執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人,要(yao)求其履(lv)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)和(he)(he)(he)(he)(he)解協(xie)(xie)議(yi)(yi)約定的(de)義務(wu)(wu),法(fa)律規定并不(bu)明(ming)確(que)。從結果看,“債(zhai)務(wu)(wu)人不(bu)履(lv)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)和(he)(he)(he)(he)(he)解協(xie)(xie)議(yi)(yi),債(zhai)權(quan)(quan)人只能申(shen)(shen)(shen)請(qing)(qing)恢(hui)(hui)復執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)”的(de)做法(fa)實際上否定了(le)當事(shi)人之間(jian)的(de)合意,缺乏(fa)對債(zhai)權(quan)(quan)人和(he)(he)(he)(he)(he)債(zhai)務(wu)(wu)人預期利益的(de)保(bao)護。尤其當執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)和(he)(he)(he)(he)(he)解協(xie)(xie)議(yi)(yi)對債(zhai)權(quan)(quan)人更有利時(shi),被執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人可以(yi)(yi)通過不(bu)履(lv)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)和(he)(he)(he)(he)(he)解協(xie)(xie)議(yi)(yi)獲益,也與誠實信用(yong)原則(ze)相悖。為此,《執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)和(he)(he)(he)(he)(he)解規定》明(ming)確(que)賦予(yu)了(le)申(shen)(shen)(shen)請(qing)(qing)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人選擇(ze)權(quan)(quan),即在被執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人不(bu)履(lv)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)和(he)(he)(he)(he)(he)解協(xie)(xie)議(yi)(yi)時(shi),申(shen)(shen)(shen)請(qing)(qing)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人既可以(yi)(yi)申(shen)(shen)(shen)請(qing)(qing)恢(hui)(hui)復執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing),也可以(yi)(yi)就(jiu)履(lv)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)和(he)(he)(he)(he)(he)解協(xie)(xie)議(yi)(yi)提起(qi)訴(su)訟。
(四)明確恢復執行(xing)的條件
根據民(min)事(shi)訴訟法(fa)第230條第2款(kuan),申請(qing)(qing)(qing)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)受(shou)欺詐、脅迫(po)與被執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)達成(cheng)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)和(he)(he)解協(xie)議(yi)(yi),或(huo)(huo)者當(dang)事(shi)人(ren)(ren)不(bu)履(lv)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)和(he)(he)解協(xie)議(yi)(yi)的(de)(de)(de),人(ren)(ren)民(min)法(fa)院(yuan)可(ke)以依申請(qing)(qing)(qing)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)的(de)(de)(de)申請(qing)(qing)(qing)恢(hui)復(fu)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)。但(dan)對于申請(qing)(qing)(qing)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)能(neng)否隨時反悔、“不(bu)履(lv)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)”的(de)(de)(de)具(ju)體(ti)內涵、“受(shou)欺詐和(he)(he)脅迫(po)”由誰(shui)認定(ding)等問題,不(bu)同法(fa)院(yuan)把握的(de)(de)(de)標準并不(bu)一致。為澄清實踐(jian)中的(de)(de)(de)誤解,《執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)和(he)(he)解規定(ding)》明(ming)確(que)了恢(hui)復(fu)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)的(de)(de)(de)條件。首(shou)先,契約嚴守(shou)和(he)(he)誠(cheng)實信(xin)用(yong)原(yuan)則應(ying)當(dang)適用(yong)于雙(shuang)方(fang)(fang)當(dang)事(shi)人(ren)(ren),任何一方(fang)(fang)都不(bu)應(ying)無故(gu)違反和(he)(he)解協(xie)議(yi)(yi),如果(guo)被執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)正在依照和(he)(he)解協(xie)議(yi)(yi)的(de)(de)(de)約定(ding)履(lv)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)義務(wu),或(huo)(huo)者執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)和(he)(he)解協(xie)議(yi)(yi)約定(ding)的(de)(de)(de)履(lv)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)期(qi)限(xian)尚未屆至、履(lv)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)條件尚未成(cheng)就,申請(qing)(qing)(qing)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)就不(bu)能(neng)要求恢(hui)復(fu)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)。其(qi)次(ci),如果(guo)債務(wu)人(ren)(ren)已經履(lv)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)完畢和(he)(he)解協(xie)議(yi)(yi)確(que)定(ding)的(de)(de)(de)義務(wu),即便存在遲延(yan)履(lv)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)或(huo)(huo)者瑕疵履(lv)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)的(de)(de)(de)情況(kuang),申請(qing)(qing)(qing)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)也不(bu)能(neng)要求恢(hui)復(fu)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)。遲延(yan)履(lv)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)或(huo)(huo)瑕疵履(lv)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)給申請(qing)(qing)(qing)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)造成(cheng)損害的(de)(de)(de),申請(qing)(qing)(qing)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)可(ke)以另行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)提起訴訟,主張賠償損失。最后(hou),出于審執(zhi)(zhi)分離的(de)(de)(de)考慮,當(dang)事(shi)人(ren)(ren)、利害關系人(ren)(ren)主張和(he)(he)解無效或(huo)(huo)可(ke)撤銷的(de)(de)(de),應(ying)當(dang)通過訴訟程序(xu)認定(ding),再向法(fa)院(yuan)申請(qing)(qing)(qing)恢(hui)復(fu)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)。
(五)明確執行和(he)解協議中擔(dan)保條款的效力
為擔(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)被(bei)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)(ren)履行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)和解(jie)(jie)協(xie)議(yi)約(yue)(yue)定的(de)義(yi)務,申(shen)請執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)(ren)常常會要求被(bei)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)(ren)提(ti)(ti)供擔(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)。此類擔(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)條(tiao)款是(shi)否(fou)構成民(min)事訴訟(song)(song)(song)法(fa)(fa)第231條(tiao)的(de)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)擔(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao),執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)法(fa)(fa)院能否(fou)依據(ju)該(gai)條(tiao)款直接執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)擔(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)財(cai)產或者保(bao)(bao)(bao)證(zheng)人(ren)(ren)(ren),實踐中爭議(yi)很(hen)大。為解(jie)(jie)決該(gai)問題,《執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)和解(jie)(jie)規定》特別規定了執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)和解(jie)(jie)協(xie)議(yi)中擔(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)條(tiao)款的(de)效(xiao)力,即如果擔(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)人(ren)(ren)(ren)向人(ren)(ren)(ren)民(min)法(fa)(fa)院承諾(nuo)被(bei)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)(ren)不履行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)和解(jie)(jie)協(xie)議(yi)時自愿接受強(qiang)制執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing),恢復(fu)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)原生效(xiao)法(fa)(fa)律文書后(hou),人(ren)(ren)(ren)民(min)法(fa)(fa)院可(ke)以依申(shen)請執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)(ren)的(de)申(shen)請及擔(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)條(tiao)款的(de)約(yue)(yue)定,直接執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)擔(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)財(cai)產或保(bao)(bao)(bao)證(zheng)人(ren)(ren)(ren)的(de)財(cai)產,不需要申(shen)請執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)(ren)另行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)提(ti)(ti)起訴訟(song)(song)(song)。當然,如果申(shen)請執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)(ren)選擇就履行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)和解(jie)(jie)協(xie)議(yi)提(ti)(ti)起訴訟(song)(song)(song),擔(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)條(tiao)款依然有效(xiao),申(shen)請執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)(ren)可(ke)以在訴訟(song)(song)(song)中主張擔(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)人(ren)(ren)(ren)承擔(dan)責任。
二、《執行擔保規定》的有關情況
執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)擔(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)是民事訴訟法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)第231條規(gui)定的一(yi)項重要制度。執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)擔(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)一(yi)方(fang)面(mian)增加了債(zhai)權人權利實現(xian)的可能性,另一(yi)方(fang)面(mian)通過適(shi)(shi)當延緩債(zhai)務履行(xing)(xing)(xing)的期(qi)限,幫助(zhu)債(zhai)務人整(zheng)頓生產經營,籌措(cuo)資金(jin),提高(gao)(gao)償債(zhai)能力(li),對(dui)保(bao)(bao)護(hu)債(zhai)務人的合法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)權益,穩定經濟發展有(you)著積(ji)極意義。但是,因法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)律(lv)、司法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)解釋的相關規(gui)定比(bi)較粗疏,導致司法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)實務中(zhong)對(dui)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)擔(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)的適(shi)(shi)用范圍、成立(li)條件、法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)律(lv)效力(li)等問題缺乏統一(yi)認識,各地法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)院(yuan)(yuan)實際(ji)做法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)存在較大差(cha)異。為統一(yi)法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)律(lv)適(shi)(shi)用,充(chong)分(fen)發揮執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)擔(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)的制度優勢,進一(yi)步規(gui)范人民法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)院(yuan)(yuan)辦理涉執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)擔(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)案件,最高(gao)(gao)人民法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)院(yuan)(yuan)在充(chong)分(fen)調研(yan),反復征(zheng)求意見(jian)的基礎上,出(chu)臺了《執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)擔(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)規(gui)定》。
該規定(ding)共16個條文,重(zhong)點對以(yi)下四方面內容予以(yi)明確規范:
(一)明確執行(xing)擔保的擔保事項
根據(ju)民(min)事(shi)(shi)(shi)訴訟(song)法(fa)(fa)第(di)231條,在(zai)(zai)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)中,被(bei)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人向人民(min)法(fa)(fa)院提(ti)供擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao),并經(jing)申請執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人同(tong)意的(de)(de)(de),人民(min)法(fa)(fa)院可以決定(ding)(ding)(ding)暫(zan)緩執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)及暫(zan)緩執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)的(de)(de)(de)期限(xian)。但該條并未明(ming)(ming)確(que),擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)的(de)(de)(de)事(shi)(shi)(shi)項(xiang)到底是(shi)什(shen)么。司法(fa)(fa)實踐中,不少執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)實務(wu)工作者對擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)事(shi)(shi)(shi)項(xiang)的(de)(de)(de)理解(jie)(jie)較為(wei)(wei)寬松(song),即只要涉及執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)程(cheng)序(xu)的(de)(de)(de)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao),例如為(wei)(wei)解(jie)(jie)除保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)全(quan)措施提(ti)供的(de)(de)(de)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)、第(di)三(san)(san)人撤銷之訴中第(di)三(san)(san)人為(wei)(wei)中止執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)提(ti)供的(de)(de)(de)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao),都屬于(yu)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)。經(jing)研究,我們認(ren)為(wei)(wei),上述(shu)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)雖然都和執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)程(cheng)序(xu)有(you)關,但與(yu)民(min)事(shi)(shi)(shi)訴訟(song)法(fa)(fa)第(di)二百(bai)三(san)(san)十(shi)(shi)一(yi)條的(de)(de)(de)規(gui)定(ding)(ding)(ding)尚有(you)區別,在(zai)(zai)概念上不宜混淆。一(yi)方面,上述(shu)規(gui)定(ding)(ding)(ding)中提(ti)供擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)的(de)(de)(de)主體各不相(xiang)同(tong),擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)事(shi)(shi)(shi)項(xiang)也(ye)差異較大,很難涵(han)蓋在(zai)(zai)同(tong)一(yi)制(zhi)度之下(xia)。另一(yi)方面,執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)的(de)(de)(de)法(fa)(fa)律效果是(shi)不經(jing)訴訟(song)程(cheng)序(xu),直接要求相(xiang)應主體承(cheng)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)責(ze)任,這種對當事(shi)(shi)(shi)人程(cheng)序(xu)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)障的(de)(de)(de)限(xian)制(zhi),應當有(you)法(fa)(fa)律的(de)(de)(de)明(ming)(ming)確(que)規(gui)定(ding)(ding)(ding)。為(wei)(wei)澄清(qing)上述(shu)誤解(jie)(jie),《執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)規(gui)定(ding)(ding)(ding)》將執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)明(ming)(ming)確(que)限(xian)定(ding)(ding)(ding)在(zai)(zai)民(min)事(shi)(shi)(shi)訴訟(song)法(fa)(fa)第(di)二百(bai)三(san)(san)十(shi)(shi)一(yi)條,即為(wei)(wei)被(bei)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人履行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)生效法(fa)(fa)律文(wen)書確(que)定(ding)(ding)(ding)義務(wu)提(ti)供的(de)(de)(de)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)。
(二(er))明確執行擔保的實現方式
根據民(min)事訴(su)訟法(fa)第231條,被(bei)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)于暫緩執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)期限屆滿前仍不(bu)(bu)履行(xing)(xing)的(de)(de),人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)民(min)法(fa)院(yuan)(yuan)有(you)權(quan)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)被(bei)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)的(de)(de)擔(dan)保(bao)(bao)財產(chan)或者(zhe)(zhe)擔(dan)保(bao)(bao)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)的(de)(de)財產(chan)。但(dan)由于其對執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)擔(dan)保(bao)(bao)具體(ti)實現(xian)方(fang)式(shi)的(de)(de)規定(ding)(ding)較(jiao)為籠統,導致(zhi)司法(fa)實踐中,人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)民(min)法(fa)院(yuan)(yuan)的(de)(de)做法(fa)不(bu)(bu)一(yi)。有(you)的(de)(de)直接(jie)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing),有(you)的(de)(de)裁(cai)定(ding)(ding)追(zhui)(zhui)加(jia)擔(dan)保(bao)(bao)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)為被(bei)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren),有(you)的(de)(de)裁(cai)定(ding)(ding)直接(jie)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)擔(dan)保(bao)(bao)財產(chan)。處理方(fang)式(shi)的(de)(de)不(bu)(bu)統一(yi),既有(you)損司法(fa)權(quan)威(wei),又增加(jia)了糾紛產(chan)生的(de)(de)可(ke)能性,司法(fa)解釋對此應當(dang)予以回應。經反(fan)復討論,考(kao)慮到執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)擔(dan)保(bao)(bao)與(yu)變更、追(zhui)(zhui)加(jia)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)當(dang)事人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)在民(min)事訴(su)訟法(fa)上屬于不(bu)(bu)同的(de)(de)法(fa)律制度,《執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)擔(dan)保(bao)(bao)規定(ding)(ding)》明確規定(ding)(ding),人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)民(min)法(fa)院(yuan)(yuan)可(ke)以根據申請執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)的(de)(de)申請,直接(jie)裁(cai)定(ding)(ding)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)擔(dan)保(bao)(bao)財產(chan)或者(zhe)(zhe)保(bao)(bao)證(zheng)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)的(de)(de)財產(chan),不(bu)(bu)得(de)將擔(dan)保(bao)(bao)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)變更、追(zhui)(zhui)加(jia)為被(bei)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)。
(三)確立(li)執(zhi)行(xing)擔(dan)保(bao)的擔(dan)保(bao)期間(jian)
《執(zhi)行(xing)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)規(gui)定》第(di)十(shi)(shi)二條(tiao)(tiao)、第(di)十(shi)(shi)三條(tiao)(tiao)確立了執(zhi)行(xing)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)期間(jian)這一(yi)全(quan)新的制度。這主(zhu)要是出(chu)于(yu)以下(xia)考慮(lv):一(yi)方面,民事訴(su)訟法(fa)解釋(shi)第(di)四百六十(shi)(shi)九條(tiao)(tiao)曾經規(gui)定過擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)期限(xian),但因其內涵與(yu)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)法(fa)的保(bao)(bao)證期間(jian)明顯不同,實踐中(zhong)常常引發(fa)誤(wu)解;另一(yi)方面,考慮(lv)到任何權(quan)利的行(xing)使(shi)(shi)都不能(neng)沒(mei)有約束,如果(guo)申請(qing)執(zhi)行(xing)人長(chang)期不主(zhu)張(zhang)權(quan)利,既會(hui)對(dui)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)人的生(sheng)產、生(sheng)活產生(sheng)不利影響,還(huan)存在利用執(zhi)行(xing)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)使(shi)(shi)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)人財產被長(chang)期查封(feng),進(jin)而規(gui)避擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)人的債(zhai)權(quan)人求償的可能(neng)。最終(zhong),本司法(fa)解釋(shi)規(gui)定,申請(qing)執(zhi)行(xing)人應(ying)當在擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)期間(jian)內對(dui)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)人主(zhu)張(zhang)權(quan)利,否則擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)人的擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)責任將(jiang)得(de)以免除。
(四)明(ming)確執行擔保的追償權
由于法(fa)(fa)律、司法(fa)(fa)解釋(shi)缺乏明確(que)規(gui)定(ding)(ding),司法(fa)(fa)實踐中,對于執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)中擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)是否享(xiang)有追償權,以及如何行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)使觀點不一。有的(de)法(fa)(fa)院基于法(fa)(fa)律、司法(fa)(fa)解釋(shi)對此(ci)沒有明確(que)規(gui)定(ding)(ding),且執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)不能適(shi)用民事擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)規(gui)則,不允許(xu)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)進行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)追償;有的(de)允許(xu)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)在承擔(dan)(dan)(dan)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)責任后,向人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)民法(fa)(fa)院起(qi)訴被(bei)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren);還(huan)有的(de)則從鼓勵(li)、保(bao)(bao)護(hu)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)的(de)積(ji)極(ji)性和(he)權益(yi)出發,在裁定(ding)(ding)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)財產時(shi)同時(shi)明確(que)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)向被(bei)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)的(de)追償權和(he)申請(qing)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)權,允許(xu)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)直(zhi)接申請(qing)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)被(bei)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)。經反復討論(lun),考(kao)慮到(dao)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)是否對被(bei)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)享(xiang)有追償權往往取決于擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)與被(bei)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)之間的(de)約定(ding)(ding),不能一概而(er)論(lun),對此(ci)法(fa)(fa)律關系(xi)執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)機(ji)構不宜(yi)介入。最終(zhong),《執(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)規(gui)定(ding)(ding)》明確(que)擔(dan)(dan)(dan)保(bao)(bao)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)可以通過訴訟(song)進行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)追償。
三、《仲裁裁決執行規定》的有關情況
黨(dang)的(de)十八屆四(si)中全會決(jue)(jue)定中明(ming)確指(zhi)出,要健(jian)全和完善多元化(hua)糾紛解決(jue)(jue)機制(zhi),完善仲裁(cai)制(zhi)度,提(ti)高仲裁(cai)公(gong)信力(li)。在社會經濟交(jiao)往(wang)過程中,仲裁(cai)因自身(shen)所具有的(de)充分體現當(dang)事人的(de)意(yi)思自治(zhi)、靈活便捷、一裁(cai)終(zhong)局等諸多特性,成為兼具契約性、自治(zhi)性、民間性和準司(si)法性的(de)一種重要的(de)糾紛化(hua)解方式,愈(yu)來愈(yu)多的(de)當(dang)事人選擇將爭議提(ti)交(jiao)仲裁(cai)解決(jue)(jue)。而仲裁(cai)的(de)自身(shen)特點決(jue)(jue)定了其健(jian)康發展必須依賴于司(si)法的(de)監(jian)督與支持。
目(mu)前,由于法(fa)律及(ji)司法(fa)解釋對人民法(fa)院(yuan)辦理(li)仲裁裁決執(zhi)行(xing)案件(jian)(jian)的規(gui)(gui)定(ding)較少,該(gai)類案件(jian)(jian)在實踐操作中仍存在一些規(gui)(gui)則(ze)空(kong)白。為(wei)切(qie)實保護(hu)當(dang)事(shi)人、案外(wai)人的合法(fa)權益,提高仲裁公信力和執(zhi)行(xing)力,促進(jin)仲裁事(shi)業的健(jian)康有(you)序發展,最高人民法(fa)院(yuan)經過(guo)充分調研,數易其稿,最終形成《仲裁裁決執(zhi)行(xing)規(gui)(gui)定(ding)》。
該規定共24個條文,主要涉及以(yi)下五(wu)個方面的內容:
(一)適當調(diao)整(zheng)仲裁裁決執行案件的管轄(xia)
根據《最(zui)高人(ren)(ren)民(min)(min)法(fa)(fa)(fa)院(yuan)(yuan)關于適用<中(zhong)華(hua)人(ren)(ren)民(min)(min)共(gong)和國仲裁法(fa)(fa)(fa)>若干(gan)問(wen)題的解釋》第(di)29條,當(dang)事人(ren)(ren)申請(qing)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)仲裁裁決(jue)案件的,由(you)被執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)人(ren)(ren)住(zhu)所地或者(zhe)被執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)的財(cai)產(chan)(chan)所在地的中(zhong)級(ji)人(ren)(ren)民(min)(min)法(fa)(fa)(fa)院(yuan)(yuan)管(guan)轄(xia)(xia)。考慮到司法(fa)(fa)(fa)實踐中(zhong),多數仲裁裁決(jue)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)案件的申請(qing)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)標(biao)的較(jiao)小,且就執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)實施程序而(er)言,對仲裁裁決(jue)與民(min)(min)商事判決(jue)規定不同的級(ji)別管(guan)轄(xia)(xia)意(yi)義不大,本解釋對仲裁裁決(jue)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)案件管(guan)轄(xia)(xia)進行(xing)了適當(dang)調整:一(yi)方(fang)面,堅持以中(zhong)級(ji)法(fa)(fa)(fa)院(yuan)(yuan)管(guan)轄(xia)(xia)為(wei)原則;另一(yi)方(fang)面,當(dang)執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)案件符合(he)基層(ceng)法(fa)(fa)(fa)院(yuan)(yuan)一(yi)審民(min)(min)商事案件級(ji)別管(guan)轄(xia)(xia)受(shou)理范圍,并經上級(ji)人(ren)(ren)民(min)(min)法(fa)(fa)(fa)院(yuan)(yuan)批(pi)準后,可(ke)以由(you)被執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)人(ren)(ren)住(zhu)所地或者(zhe)被執(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)行(xing)財(cai)產(chan)(chan)所在地的基層(ceng)法(fa)(fa)(fa)院(yuan)(yuan)管(guan)轄(xia)(xia)。
需要(yao)注意的(de)(de)(de)是,對(dui)不予(yu)執行仲(zhong)裁(cai)(cai)(cai)(cai)裁(cai)(cai)(cai)(cai)決(jue)(jue)申(shen)請的(de)(de)(de)審(shen)查(cha)(cha)屬于對(dui)仲(zhong)裁(cai)(cai)(cai)(cai)裁(cai)(cai)(cai)(cai)決(jue)(jue)的(de)(de)(de)司(si)法監(jian)督范疇,為統一對(dui)仲(zhong)裁(cai)(cai)(cai)(cai)裁(cai)(cai)(cai)(cai)決(jue)(jue)司(si)法監(jian)督的(de)(de)(de)審(shen)查(cha)(cha)尺度,《仲(zhong)裁(cai)(cai)(cai)(cai)裁(cai)(cai)(cai)(cai)決(jue)(jue)執行規定(ding)》明確規定(ding),對(dui)不予(yu)執行申(shen)請的(de)(de)(de)審(shen)查(cha)(cha)仍由中(zhong)級人民(min)(min)法院(yuan)負責(ze),即使案(an)件已指定(ding)基(ji)層(ceng)法院(yuan)管轄(xia)的(de)(de)(de),也應移送原執行法院(yuan)另行立案(an)審(shen)查(cha)(cha)處理(li)。這充分體現(xian)了人民(min)(min)法院(yuan)對(dui)仲(zhong)裁(cai)(cai)(cai)(cai)裁(cai)(cai)(cai)(cai)決(jue)(jue)不予(yu)執行的(de)(de)(de)審(shen)慎態度。
(二(er))明確裁決執行內容不明確具體的認定標準及處(chu)理方法
根據民事(shi)訴訟法(fa)解釋(shi)第463條,當事(shi)人(ren)(ren)申(shen)請人(ren)(ren)民法(fa)院(yuan)(yuan)執(zhi)行(xing)的(de)生效法(fa)律(lv)文書應(ying)當給付內(nei)(nei)容明(ming)(ming)確(que)(que)(que)。但對(dui)于“明(ming)(ming)確(que)(que)(que)”的(de)標準,對(dui)不(bu)明(ming)(ming)確(que)(que)(que)的(de)案件應(ying)當如(ru)何處(chu)理(li),目前的(de)法(fa)律(lv)、司法(fa)解釋(shi)尚缺乏指(zhi)引。為解決實踐爭議(yi),《仲裁(cai)(cai)裁(cai)(cai)決執(zhi)行(xing)規(gui)定(ding)》主要從以(yi)下五(wu)個方(fang)面入手:一是列(lie)舉了實踐中常見的(de)仲裁(cai)(cai)裁(cai)(cai)決“不(bu)明(ming)(ming)確(que)(que)(que)具(ju)體(ti)(ti)”的(de)情形;二是為減輕當事(shi)人(ren)(ren)訟累,規(gui)定(ding)執(zhi)行(xing)內(nei)(nei)容不(bu)明(ming)(ming)確(que)(que)(que)具(ju)體(ti)(ti)的(de)應(ying)首先通過(guo)補正(zheng)等(deng)(deng)方(fang)式(shi)解決;三(san)是經補正(zheng)等(deng)(deng)方(fang)式(shi)仍(reng)無法(fa)明(ming)(ming)確(que)(que)(que)執(zhi)行(xing)內(nei)(nei)容的(de),人(ren)(ren)民法(fa)院(yuan)(yuan)可以(yi)裁(cai)(cai)定(ding)駁回執(zhi)行(xing)申(shen)請;四是明(ming)(ming)確(que)(que)(que)當事(shi)人(ren)(ren)對(dui)駁回執(zhi)行(xing)申(shen)請不(bu)服的(de),可以(yi)直(zhi)接向上一級法(fa)院(yuan)(yuan)申(shen)請復議(yi);五(wu)是對(dui)于仲裁(cai)(cai)裁(cai)(cai)決確(que)(que)(que)定(ding)交(jiao)付的(de)特定(ding)物確(que)(que)(que)已毀(hui)損或滅(mie)失(shi)的(de),人(ren)(ren)民法(fa)院(yuan)(yuan)可以(yi)通過(guo)終結執(zhi)行(xing)等(deng)(deng)方(fang)式(shi)處(chu)理(li)。
(三(san))適當(dang)拓展申請不予執(zhi)行的主體范圍
實踐中,個別當(dang)事人惡意(yi)仲(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)裁(cai)、虛(xu)假仲(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)裁(cai),不僅損害(hai)了(le)案(an)(an)外人的(de)合(he)法(fa)(fa)權(quan)益,更損害(hai)了(le)仲(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)裁(cai)與司法(fa)(fa)的(de)社會(hui)公信(xin)力。但法(fa)(fa)律、司法(fa)(fa)解釋對于(yu)案(an)(an)外人能否申(shen)(shen)請(qing)(qing)(qing)不予(yu)(yu)執行(xing)(xing)(xing)仲(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)裁(cai)裁(cai)決(jue)缺乏規(gui)定(ding)。此次(ci)《仲(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)裁(cai)裁(cai)決(jue)執行(xing)(xing)(xing)規(gui)定(ding)》對申(shen)(shen)請(qing)(qing)(qing)不予(yu)(yu)執行(xing)(xing)(xing)的(de)主體范圍予(yu)(yu)以(yi)適當(dang)拓展,明確(que)賦予(yu)(yu)了(le)案(an)(an)外人申(shen)(shen)請(qing)(qing)(qing)不予(yu)(yu)執行(xing)(xing)(xing)的(de)權(quan)利(li),并分別在第(di)九條和(he)第(di)十八條明確(que)了(le)不予(yu)(yu)執行(xing)(xing)(xing)仲(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)裁(cai)裁(cai)決(jue)的(de)程序條件(jian)和(he)實質審(shen)查標準。簡言之,案(an)(an)外人有證(zheng)據證(zheng)明仲(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)裁(cai)案(an)(an)件(jian)當(dang)事人惡意(yi)仲(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)裁(cai)或者(zhe)虛(xu)假仲(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)裁(cai)損害(hai)其(qi)合(he)法(fa)(fa)權(quan)益的(de),可以(yi)向人民法(fa)(fa)院(yuan)申(shen)(shen)請(qing)(qing)(qing)不予(yu)(yu)執行(xing)(xing)(xing)仲(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)裁(cai)裁(cai)決(jue)或者(zhe)仲(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)裁(cai)調解書,人民法(fa)(fa)院(yuan)將嚴格(ge)審(shen)查,確(que)認其(qi)主張是否成立。而對于(yu)案(an)(an)外人申(shen)(shen)請(qing)(qing)(qing)不予(yu)(yu)執行(xing)(xing)(xing)的(de)審(shen)查結果,同時賦予(yu)(yu)當(dang)事人、案(an)(an)外人進一步救(jiu)濟的(de)權(quan)利(li),以(yi)充分保(bao)障其(qi)權(quan)益。
(四(si))統(tong)一(yi)不予執(zhi)行仲裁(cai)裁(cai)決案件的審查標準
目(mu)前,民事訴訟法對(dui)于(yu)不予(yu)(yu)執行(xing)仲裁裁決(jue)的事由雖有規定(ding)(ding),但相比豐(feng)富的司法實踐,仍顯得過于(yu)原則和籠統(tong),實踐中容易出現審查尺度不統(tong)一的問題。為此,《仲裁裁決(jue)執行(xing)規定(ding)(ding)》對(dui)不予(yu)(yu)執行(xing)仲裁裁決(jue)的事由進(jin)一步予(yu)(yu)以(yi)解釋,明確了無權仲裁、違反法定(ding)(ding)程序、偽造(zao)證據及隱瞞證據的認定(ding)(ding)標準,使(shi)法律(lv)適用更(geng)統(tong)一、更(geng)具(ju)操作(zuo)性。
此外,為防止(zhi)被(bei)執行(xing)(xing)人(ren)濫用程序權利阻礙仲裁裁決案件執行(xing)(xing),《仲裁裁決執行(xing)(xing)規定(ding)》還列舉了若干(gan)明顯違背(bei)誠實信用原則申請不予(yu)執行(xing)(xing)的(de)情形,明確規定(ding)人(ren)民法院對此類申請不予(yu)支持。
(五)明確撤銷仲裁(cai)裁(cai)決與不予執行仲裁(cai)裁(cai)決司(si)法審(shen)查的(de)程序銜接
根據仲(zhong)(zhong)裁(cai)(cai)法的(de)規定,申請(qing)撤(che)(che)銷(xiao)仲(zhong)(zhong)裁(cai)(cai)裁(cai)(cai)決(jue)(jue)與不(bu)予(yu)(yu)(yu)執(zhi)行(xing)(xing)仲(zhong)(zhong)裁(cai)(cai)裁(cai)(cai)決(jue)(jue)兩救(jiu)濟程(cheng)序雙(shuang)軌并行(xing)(xing);且提(ti)出申請(qing)的(de)法定事由基本相(xiang)同(tong),為了進(jin)一步(bu)提(ti)高人(ren)民法院對(dui)仲(zhong)(zhong)裁(cai)(cai)裁(cai)(cai)決(jue)(jue)司(si)法審查(cha)的(de)效率,貫徹(che)尊重(zhong)仲(zhong)(zhong)裁(cai)(cai)、保障(zhang)仲(zhong)(zhong)裁(cai)(cai)執(zhi)行(xing)(xing)的(de)司(si)法原(yuan)則(ze),《仲(zhong)(zhong)裁(cai)(cai)裁(cai)(cai)決(jue)(jue)執(zhi)行(xing)(xing)規定》對(dui)兩程(cheng)序的(de)銜(xian)接進(jin)一步(bu)予(yu)(yu)(yu)以(yi)明(ming)確(que)、簡化。詳(xiang)言之(zhi),不(bu)予(yu)(yu)(yu)執(zhi)行(xing)(xing)審查(cha)期間,當事人(ren)撤(che)(che)銷(xiao)仲(zhong)(zhong)裁(cai)(cai)裁(cai)(cai)決(jue)(jue)申請(qing)被(bei)受理(li)的(de),法院應當裁(cai)(cai)定中止(zhi)不(bu)予(yu)(yu)(yu)執(zhi)行(xing)(xing)申請(qing)的(de)審查(cha);被(bei)執(zhi)行(xing)(xing)人(ren)同(tong)時申請(qing)撤(che)(che)銷(xiao)仲(zhong)(zhong)裁(cai)(cai)裁(cai)(cai)決(jue)(jue)和不(bu)予(yu)(yu)(yu)執(zhi)行(xing)(xing)仲(zhong)(zhong)裁(cai)(cai)裁(cai)(cai)決(jue)(jue)時,其(qi)撤(che)(che)回(hui)撤(che)(che)裁(cai)(cai)申請(qing)的(de),應視為一并撤(che)(che)回(hui)不(bu)予(yu)(yu)(yu)執(zhi)行(xing)(xing)申請(qing)。如此制度設計,可(ke)以(yi)有效避免被(bei)執(zhi)行(xing)(xing)人(ren)濫用司(si)法程(cheng)序阻礙執(zhi)行(xing)(xing),也有利于減少重(zhong)復審查(cha)造成的(de)司(si)法資(zi)源浪(lang)費(fei)。
法制網北京2月23日訊
日期:2018-2-23 15:31:58 | 關閉 |
Copyright © 1999-2018 杭(hang)州法圖網絡科技有限公司
浙ICP備10202533號-1
浙公(gong)網安備 33010502000828號