论文部分内容阅读
2012年修改的《民事诉讼法》未确认的两种民事检察建议中,民事预防检察建议不是一种法律监督方式,能够在民事检察监督实践中继续使用,追究责任民事检察建议则是一种法律监督方式,在没有法律依据的情况下,不能继续使用。民事再审检察建议和抗诉适用情形的区分应当与《民事诉讼法》现有的规定相衔接。借鉴修改后《民事诉讼法》第二百一十一条关于检察机关抗诉时上下级法院再审案件分工的规定,再审检察建议的适用范围应当是适合由原审法院管辖的案件,即事实认定有错误的案件;抗诉的适用范围则是适宜由上级法院再审的案件,即程序违法、法律适用错误、审判人员贪污受贿渎职等案件。在《民事诉讼法》没有明确规定的情况下,纠正违法通知书不能在民事诉讼中使用。然而,使用检察建议对民事诉讼违法行为进行监督本身存在一定问题,在不考虑修改后的《民事诉讼法》本身规定的情况下,使用纠正违法通知书的方式进行监督更为妥当
Of the two types of civil prosecution proposals not revised in the Civil Procedure Law amended in 2012, the proposal of civil preventive prosecution is not a form of legal supervision and can be used continuously in the practice of civil procuratorial supervision. It is a law to hold civil liability prosecutors’ recommendations The way of supervision can not be continued without legal basis. The distinction between the suggestion of civil retrial and the application of the protest should be consistent with the existing provisions of the Civil Procedure Law. To draw upon the provisions of Article 211 of the amended Civil Procedure Law on the division of labor between higher and lower courts in the protest of procuratorial organs, the scope of application of the proposals for retrial and prosecution should be suitable for cases governed by the court of first instance, that is, the facts are found to be erroneous The scope of application of the protest is a case that is suitable for retrial by a higher court, that is, the procedure is illegal, the law is applied incorrectly, the corrupt officials are bribed for corruption and other cases. In the “Civil Procedure Law” is not clearly defined circumstances, to correct the notice of infringement can not be used in civil proceedings. However, the use of procuratorial supervision of civil procedural law violations inherently poses some problems. Without regard to the amended Civil Procedure Law itself, it is more appropriate to use the method of rectification of infringement of law notices