Research On The System Of Prohibiting Repeated Prosecution In Civil Procedure

In recent years,experts and scholars from the two major foreign legal systems and my country have conducted a series of studies on repeated prosecutions and related issues.In2015,the Supreme People’s Court of my country promulgated the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China（hereinafter referred to as the "Interpretation of Civil Procedures"）,in which Article 247 for the first time stipulates the prohibition of repeated prosecutions.Taking "parties","object of litigation" and "claims" as the core identification criteria for repeated prosecution,and clarifying the corresponding regulatory issues,it fills the blank of the repeated prosecution system in our country’s legislation.However,the explanation fails to give a clear and clear definition of these three elements,nor to formulate an effective guarantee mechanism.At the same time,in the judicial practice in recent years,repeated prosecution cases frequently occur in my country,which not only greatly wastes precious judicial resources,but also interferes with the normal judicial order of judicial organs.Based on this,except for the introduction and conclusion,this paper is divided into four parts to explore and analyze the repeated prosecution system in our country.The first part mainly starts from the basic theory of prohibiting repeated prosecution system.Firstly,it discusses the concept and origin of the prohibition of repeated prosecution system;secondly,it analyzes the relationship between the prohibition of repeated prosecution and related concepts that need to be clarified during the construction of the system,especially the relationship between litigation and ignorance,The connection and difference of res judgment.Finally,from the three aspects of the prohibition of repeated prosecution system on the realization of litigation economy,the maintenance of procedural stability and the protection of the interests of the parties,it analyzes the positive impact of further improving and operating this system in my country.The second part mainly expounds the problems existing in the legislation and judiciary of our country’s civil procedure on the prohibition of repeated prosecution system at the current stage.First of all,the definition of the criteria for the identification of repeated lawsuits is not clear,especially in the application of the concept to explore the confusion between the subject of the lawsuit and the claim.Secondly,the theory of litigation affiliation and dispute effect,which are the foundations of the civil litigation theory of the extraterritorial legal system,has not been seen in our country’s legislation,which makes our country’s system of prohibiting repeated prosecutions has certain defects in the legislative logic.Finally,it analyzes the problems arising from the three typical perspectives of the pre-trial system,the application of guiding cases,and the judge’s right to interpret,which are caused by the lack of safeguards under the current mechanism.The third part uses the comparative analysis method to investigate the representative countries and regions in the civil law system and the common law system,such as Germany,Japan,China’s Taiwan,the United Kingdom,the United States,etc.,and analyzes the prohibition of repeated prosecution in its legislation and judicial system.In order to improve our country’s prohibition of repeated prosecution system,we can learn from and draw on advanced experience.The fourth part mainly gives the corresponding suggestions on the existing problems of the current system summarized in the previous part,and at the same time,according to the essence of the theoretical system of the civil law system and the common law system obtained from the previous analysis,and taking into account the current judicial status quo in our country,to put forward ideas for improving my country’s judicial safeguard measures against repeated prosecutions.The improvement suggestions are divided into two aspects: legislative identification and judicial protection,including specific suggestions for improving the identification of case subjects,supplementing and applying the theory of deficiency,and accelerating the establishment of a shared case filing information network platform and pre-trial procedures.