In the process of civil litigation, can the parties apply for audio and video recording? During the court session, when the presiding judge announced the court discipline, there was a saying that audio and video recording were not allowed without the permission of this court. Few people are actually allowed.
What facts do not need to be proved by the parties in civil litigation? According to the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Proceedings, the parties need not provide evidence for the following facts:
? (1) Well-known facts;
? (2) Natural laws and theorems;
? (3) Other facts that can be inferred according to laws or known facts and rules of daily life experience;
? (four) the facts confirmed by the legally effective judgment of the people's court;
? (five) the facts confirmed by the arbitration institution's effective award;
? (6) Facts proved by valid notarial documents.
(7) One party clearly acknowledges the facts of the case and the claim of the other party;
In the process of civil litigation, are the parties equal in litigation status? Civil litigation is a judicial procedure to solve disputes over property relations and personal relations between equal subjects. As an inevitable extension of the equality of subjects in civil legal relations, the equality of litigant status naturally becomes the essential requirement of civil litigation. If the legal status of the parties is unequal, the balanced structure of civil litigation cannot be formed, and the equality of litigation rights, the implementation of the principle of debate and the neutrality of judges' judgments will lose their foundation. Therefore, in order to realize litigation democracy and procedural justice, all procedural systems of civil litigation should be based on the concept of equal status of the parties. Article 8 of China's Civil Procedure Law stipulates that the litigants' litigation rights are equal, which is the principle basis of the complete equality of the litigants' litigation status. To realize the equal litigation status of the parties, not only should the law give both parties equal opportunities to enjoy their rights and perform their obligations, but the court, as the organizer and commander of the litigation procedure, should also treat both parties equally without favoritism or discrimination. The former is the system guarantee, and the latter is the responsibility of the judge. Among them, the equal judicial treatment of the parties that have become legal norms is the most important, because it is the basic basis for the parties and judges to conduct various litigation behaviors, and it is also a clear standard to judge whether the equal status of the parties is damaged.
Litigation status refers to the legal status of the litigant in the process of civil litigation.
First of all, according to Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Law, the people's court has the right to investigate and collect evidence from relevant units and individuals, and relevant units and individuals may not refuse.
The people's court shall distinguish the authenticity of the documents submitted by the relevant units and individuals, and examine and determine their validity.
At the same time, according to Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Law, all units and individuals who know the case are obliged to testify in court. The person in charge of the relevant unit shall support the witness to testify.
People who cannot express their meaning correctly cannot testify.
Secondly, according to the provisions of Article 73 of the Civil Procedure Law, a witness shall testify in court after being notified by the people's court. Under any of the following circumstances, with the permission of the people's court, written testimony, audio-visual transmission technology or audio-visual materials may be used to testify:
Unable to appear in court for health reasons;
(2) Being unable to appear in court due to long distance and inconvenient transportation;
(3) Unable to appear in court due to force majeure such as natural disasters;
(four) other legitimate reasons can not appear in court.
Can the facts admitted in court mediation be used as evidence? In litigation, the recognition of the facts of the case involved in the compromise made by the parties to reach a mediation agreement or settlement shall not be used as evidence against them in subsequent litigation. Therefore, the judge's statement is valid.
Can the relatives and friends of the agent testify for the parties in civil proceedings? All units and individuals who know the case have the obligation to testify in court. Unless you can't express yourself correctly. The testimony provided by a witness close to one party has little probative force.
& lt People's Republic of China (PRC) Civil Procedure Law >
Article 72 All units and individuals who know the circumstances of a case have the obligation to testify in court. The person in charge of the relevant unit shall support the witness to testify. People who cannot express their meaning correctly cannot testify.
Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Procedure
Article 77 The people's court may determine the probative force of multiple evidences of the same fact according to the following principles:
(a) the probative force of official documents and documentary evidence produced by state organs and social organizations according to their functions and powers is generally greater than other documentary evidence;
(2) Physical evidence, archives, expert conclusions, transcripts of inspection or notarized and registered documentary evidence are generally more probative than other documentary evidence, audio-visual materials and witness testimony;
(3) The probative force of the original evidence is generally greater than that of the obtained evidence;
(4) The probative power of direct evidence is generally greater than that of indirect evidence;
(five) the testimony provided by a witness is beneficial to the parties who have relatives or other close relations with him, and its probative force is generally less than that of other witnesses.
Are the facts in the complaint admitted by the parties themselves? The contents and facts admitted by the parties themselves in the complaint constitute self-admission in the civil procedure law, and the burden of proof of the other party is exempted.
The party was dissolved in a civil lawsuit. Xu was sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment 12 years by the court for defrauding Shamou of 460,000 yuan. After the criminal judgment came into effect, Shamou sued Xu and his wife Liu for returning unjust enrichment on the grounds that the money defrauded by Xu was used for the common life of husband and wife. During the trial of the case, Shamou withdrew his claim against Liu, and later sentenced Xu to return Shamou 460,000 yuan. After the judgment came into effect, Shamou applied to the court for execution. During the execution, Shamou applied to add Xu's wife Liu as the executor. There are two opinions on whether Wei Liu should be added to this case. The first opinion is to add Wei Liu as the executor of this case. The reason is that the money defrauded by the executor Xu is used for the husband and wife to live together, and it is during the relationship between husband and wife. According to the provisions of Article 24 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China (II), if a creditor claims rights for debts incurred by one party in his own name during the marriage relationship, it shall be regarded as joint debts of husband and wife. Paragraph 5 of Article 124 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that if the people's court allows the withdrawal of the lawsuit, it shall accept it again. Therefore, Wei Liu should be added as the executor of this case. Another view is that there will be no additional executors in Zuowei Liu's case. The reasons are as follows: First, the applicant Shamou sued Xu and his wife Liu for returning unjust enrichment. During the trial, he withdrew the prosecution against Liu, which was his true intention. Because Shamou withdrew the lawsuit against Liu, the judgment did not determine whether returning unjust enrichment was the same debt. In the process of execution, if the debt is not recognized according to the effective judgment, it will be regarded as a * * * debt during the existence of the husband and wife. Second, in the process of execution, when Shamou requested to add Liu as the executor, because the unjust enrichment was not recognized as the joint debt of husband and wife in the judgment, Shamou should provide corresponding evidence to prove that his debt was the joint debt of * * * *, and Shamou did not submit enough evidence to prove his claim, so he could not add Liu as the executor. The author agrees with the second opinion. Li yang