A STUDY ON "CONCILIATION IN LAW SUITS"FROMA A CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE

宪法视角下的“诉讼调解”研究

• 批准号: 09620015
• 负责人: SASADA Eiji
• 金额: $ 0.77万
• 依托单位: Kanazawa University
• 依托单位国家: 日本
• 项目类别: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
• 财政年份: 1997
• 资助国家: 日本
• 起止时间: 1997 至 1998
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/grant/KAKENHI-PROJECT-09620015/
• 关键词: judiciary; conciliation; procedural due process; access to courts; 和解; 司法権

For over the past decade, the judiciary has actively pursued the procedure of conciliation within law suits. This has had both favorable and unfavorable responses. The lavorable responses have been that it has reduced judicial expenses and that it has made possible remedies not capable of being reached by an actual court judgment. On the other hand, in large-scale law suits involvinq public power related concerns such as the Aids Case and Hinamata Disease Cases problems concerning pressure to pursue a judgment by law" are quite strong. Furthermore. issues concerning the limits in the role of judicial power and the increase at judicial discretion by the judge are said to be unfavorable if conciliatoin procedure is used since it may result in infringements in the partys procedural guarantees.From the perspective of the judiciary as being "the fair decision-maker, " the following three c'onditions justify using conciliation procedures in the above-mentioned large-scale public law suits. They are : 1) The need for an urgent remedy ; 21 The court must give an detailed legal "opinion" ; 3) A guarantee of procedural due process.The recent amendment to the code of Civil Procedure established reparatory proceedings for advocacy (xi 265). The aim of the amendment was to eliminate doubts about advocacy and judicial conciliation proceedings and to make clear the procedures involved.The most important point to consider for the parties in the law suit is that the judge"involved collects the necessary information in a fair manner and that the information is properly disclosed. In order to accomplish this procedure, an important point will be to control the judges discretion based on Artilce 32 of the Constitution which guarantees "the right of access to courts." Unfortunately, research in this particular field is still insulficient. More research on Article 32 concerning the control of judicial discretion will need to be done in the future.

在过去十年中，司法机构在法律诉讼中积极推行调解程序。这有积极的和消极的反应。可援引的答复是，它减少了司法费用，并使实际法院判决无法达到的补救办法成为可能。另一方面，在艾滋病案和小穗病案等涉及公共权力的大型诉讼中，“依法判决的压力”问题相当强烈。此外。关于限制司法权的作用和增加法官的司法自由裁量权的问题，如果使用调解程序，可能会导致对当事人程序保障的侵犯，因此被认为是不利的。从司法机关作为“公正的决策者“的角度来看，以下三个条件证明在上述大规模的公法诉讼中使用调解程序是合理的。它们分别是：（1）紧急补救的必要性;（21）法院必须提供详细的法律的“意见”;（3）程序性正当程序的保障最近对《民事诉讼法》的修正案确立了辩护的赔偿程序（xi 265）。修正案的目的是消除对辩护和司法调解程序的疑虑，并明确所涉程序，对诉讼当事人来说，最重要的考虑是“有关法官以公平的方式收集所需的资料，并适当地披露资料。为了完成这一程序，一个重要的问题是根据《宪法》第32条控制法官的自由裁量权，该条保障“诉诸法院的权利”。“不幸的是，在这个特定领域的研究仍然是不充分的。今后需要对关于控制司法自由裁量权的第32条进行更多的研究。

项目成果

笹田栄司: "裁判制度-やわらかな司法の試み-" 信山社, 260 (1997)

Eiji Sasada：“法院系统 - 软司法的尝试” Shinzansha，260 (1997)

笹田栄司: "裁判制度-やわらかな司法の試み" 信山社, 260 (1997)

Eiji Sasada：“法院系统 - 软司法的尝试” Shinzansha，260 (1997)

JUDICIAL SYSTEM. Shinzansha, 260 (1997)

司法系统。