我国书证提出命令制度研究

Documentary Evidence Proposes a Study of the Order System

摘要: 2015年《民事诉讼法解释》出台，正式对书证提出命令制度作出明确规定，当事人可以通过向人民法院申请的方式要求对方当事人提交自己控制的书证，成为当事人收集证据的一种方式。书证提出命令制度的确认能够降低处于弱势地位的当事人收集证据的难度，保障诉讼权益，同时有利于审判人员全面、客观发现案件事实，促进实质公平正义的实现。但制度在运行过程中仍然暴露出一些问题，为解决主体范围是否过窄、提出时间不够明确、审查程序缺失等问题，本文主要利用比较研究的方法，通过对比国内外书证提出命令制度的差异，说明当前需要明确书证提出命令制度的法律地位、增设逾期申请的制度程序、明确权利受损时的救济手段。

Abstract: In 2015, the interpretation of the Civil Law was promulgated, which formally stipulated the system of submitting orders for docu-mentary evidence, and the parties could request the order party to submit documentary evidence under their control by applying to the people’s court, which became a way for the parties to collect evidence. The confirmation of the documentary evidence and order system can reduce the difficulty of collecting evidence for parties in a weak position, protect the rights and interests of litigation, and at the same time help adjudicators to comprehensively and objectively discover the facts of the case and promote the realization of substantive fairness and justice. However, the system still exposes some problems in the process of operation, in order to solve the problems of whether the scope of the subject is too narrow, the time is not clear enough, and the review procedure is missing, this paper mainly uses the method of comparative research to clarify the differences between the order system of documentary evidence submission at home and abroad, and expounds the legal status of the documentary evidence submission order system, the system procedure for adding overdue ap-plications, and the means of relief when the rights are damaged.