2. Complete relevant service procedures and formalities within the time limit specified by law. Currently, litigation documents are served by the court before the court session. However, due to the time difference between the filing of a case and the hearing, parties and other litigation participants who have not received summons and notice should be served with a summons 3 days before the hearing and a notice of appearance to the litigation participants to ensure their timely participation. litigation.
The People's Court hears cases in two ways: public hearings and closed hearings. For cases that are to be heard in public, after the court date is determined, a notice shall be posted on the court bulletin board three days before the hearing, indicating that the trial will be held in public.
3. Conduct pre-trial evidence exchange for cases with complex cases and large amounts of evidence. In civil cases, we often encounter cases with complex circumstances and a lot of evidence. Pre-trial evidence exchange for such cases can simplify cases with complex disputes and cases with a lot of evidence, and make the trial work more difficult. From easy to complex, from complicated to simple, it is conducive to the smooth progress of the case trial work. In civil litigation, many parties blame the judge for losing the case. The first reason is that civil litigation is a redistribution of interests. Many parties proceed from their own interests and jump out of the legal framework to measure the judicial behavior of judges; secondly, The parties only rely on oral or one-party evidence to consult certain people's opinions, and use the possibility of consulting opinions to reach conclusions that measure the judicial behavior of the judge; third, the understanding of the complexity of civil cases is inconsistent, the results are diverse, and different judges hear the cases The same complex case will produce different results, and substantive justice has limitations and ambiguities. When a judge hears a case, he cannot be like a primary school student doing arithmetic problems, and he can only come up with the only correct answer. The fourth is the inconsistency between objective facts and legal facts. For each specific case, the judge's determination of the facts of the case is not "absolute truth" but only "relative truth." Some parties believe that the objective facts are reasonable, but they do not There are no legal facts. evidence. Due to the low legal literacy of our country's citizens, a strange phenomenon has occurred, in which defendants often passively litigate in the first-instance procedure and actively litigate in the second-instance procedure, resulting in inconsistent fact-findings between the first and second-instance proceedings. Since the exchange of evidence in civil litigation in my country is carried out after the expiration of the time limit for production of evidence, the people's court will not accept the evidence provided after the expiration of the time limit for production of evidence that is not new evidence. Therefore, after the expiration of the time limit for production of evidence for evidence exchange, the other party often has to The issue of providing rebuttal evidence when the time limit for providing evidence has expired. Therefore, according to our practical experience, it is necessary for the judge to understand the focus issues of the case through a preliminary review of the case litigation materials before the trial, and before the expiration of the evidence period, propose evidence requirements and legal consequences to the parties, based on the focus issues and the legal consequences of the case. Evidence situation, guide the parties to produce evidence, and encourage the parties to actively, comprehensively, correctly and honestly complete the evidence within a reasonable period, so as to facilitate the ascertainment of the facts of the case. The parties should be guided to produce evidence within a reasonable time limit. The method of initiating the exchange of evidence may be decided by the adjudicator or by the party applying for the exchange of evidence. A transcript must be made as a result of the exchange of evidence, and the exchange of evidence between the parties shall be recorded in the transcript.
Effectively improve the ability to control court hearings
Hearing cases is one of the important criteria for assessing a judge’s ability. An excellent judge is not only a person who can skillfully control court hearing activities, but also a person who can fully demonstrate himself Opportunities for talent.
1. Judges should pay attention to their judicial etiquette. As the saying goes: strict but powerful. Sitting under the solemn national emblem, judges must pay attention to their appearance, behavior, language, etc.
In ordinary court trials, there are many irregularities in legal terminology. By starting standardized trial activities, we studied the use of standardized legal terminology in court trials and overcame the problems that existed in previous trials. The use of standardized legal language will enable the parties and observers to feel the judge's majesty and knowledge when listening, and have full confidence in the judge's impartial administration of justice. Otherwise, if a judge is disheveled, sitting in a bad posture, behaving rudely, using uncivilized language, using unstandardized language, being impatient or reprimanding the parties during court sessions, it will inevitably cause the parties to have reasonable doubts about the judge's image and judicial impartiality, which will directly affect the judge's image and judicial impartiality. Affect the external image of the court.
2. Open the court in accordance with legal procedures. Since the Civil Procedure Law only stipulates the procedures for court hearings in principle, there are still many issues that need to be explored in practice. During the trial of a case, the blindness and arbitrariness of the trial procedure must be overcome. Procedural fairness is a necessary prerequisite to ensure substantive fairness, and the procedure must be legal. Litigation must be conducted in strict accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law, and in terms of specific requirements, the court hearing procedures prescribed by the Intermediate People's Court must be followed. Therefore, judges must perform their duties conscientiously and master relevant legal knowledge to deal with temporary problems that may arise during a trial. During a trial, some unexpected things often occur, and the judge must be able to deal with them, which requires the judge to be able to deal with them. Have rich experience and master relevant legal knowledge, carefully organize, make strict arrangements, clear division of labor, and prevent omissions.
3. Protect the litigation rights of the parties. The trial preparation stage includes determining the parties' appearance in court, announcing the members of the collegial panel, and explaining the litigation rights and obligations to the parties. The law gives litigants the right to litigate. The judge must protect the litigant’s litigious rights. No one has the right to deprive the litigant of the litigious rights. The judge must explain the litigious rights to the litigants, ask whether there are any reasons for recusal, and fully listen to the parties’ statements, evidence, cross-examination and debate opinions. . Only in this way can the facts of the case be ascertained, the litigation rights of the parties guaranteed, the responsibilities of right and wrong be distinguished, the law can be correctly applied, the disputes between the two parties can be resolved, and judicial justice can truly be achieved. In practice, some judges show impatience and impatience, fail to listen carefully and fully to the statements and arguments of the parties, and randomly interrupt and stop the parties from speaking. These are all incorrect practices. A considerable number of judges only pay attention to the substance and not the procedure. In fact, compared with the substance, the procedure is more important than the substance. The procedural fairness of the case cannot be guaranteed, and the substantive fairness of the case cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, the judge must guarantee the litigation rights of the parties. The judge should remain neutral and neutral, and must not treat the other party unfairly.
4. Court evidence, cross-examination and certification. Court evidence production, cross-examination and certification are the central links in court proceedings. Regarding how to produce evidence, cross-examination and certification, the "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation" does not have clear provisions on this, so the practices of courts at all levels are different. We believe that it depends on the different circumstances of the case. For cases where there is not much evidence, no contradiction between the evidence, clear facts, and simple case facts, the plaintiff and defendant should each insist on their own side of the case, and then the court will authenticate the evidence. The cross-examination and certification of evidence can be completed. For cases with more complex cases and a lot of evidence, pre-trial evidence exchange is adopted to simplify the trial of the case. Evidence is exchanged before the trial, evidence exchange transcripts are produced, and the procedures for producing evidence for the parties during the court investigation are first of all. The parties to the exchange of evidence shall exchange evidence. For evidence without objection, the clerk shall prepare a transcript of the trial, and then conduct evidence presentation and cross-examination to the parties concerned. Evidence without objection will no longer be presented and cross-examined. For objectionable evidence, during court investigation, cross-examination will be conducted by the original party, the defendant, and the other party. Regarding the issue of certification in court, there are two opinions. The first opinion advocates certification in court; the second opinion advocates certification after review by the court collegial panel.
We prefer the second opinion, because in such cases, certification cannot be made at will during court investigation. Controversial evidence or evidence is not very obvious, so it should be certified after court. Certification in court cannot be used to measure the judge’s control. In terms of the ability of the court hearing, the facts of the case are the actions of both parties to the case. It is necessary to comprehensively and objectively review the evidence presented by both parties to determine the final result. Therefore, in-court certification is one-sided in the evidence. There are often some contradictory issues in court certification. As evidence, it must have the basic elements of objectivity, relevance, and legality. When the plaintiff and the defendant make opposite claims about the same fact and present evidence, there will be a problem of the size of the evidence of both parties. , because my country’s civil litigation does not adopt a compulsory agency system, the parties’ understanding of the “three properties” of evidence and the uncertainty of the size of the evidence, and some evidence is objective but has no relevance to the case. nature, and the parties have no objections during the trial, resulting in the parties’ opinions being inconsistent with the court’s certification opinions. If the court’s certification opinions often have some contradictory issues, it is best to have the collegial panel certify the certification after the collegial panel certifies it. Comments are evaluated. The result expressed in the judgment. If the first opinion is adopted, it will be certified in court and not accepted in the judgment, which will cause the parties to distrust the judge and think that the judge has gone back on his word.