| 我国方才树立了第三人撤消之诉，而该轨制直接遭到法国第三人撤消判决之诉的作用。法国第三人撤消判决之诉的本质是经由过程付与案外第三人启动再审的权力和主体资历，使其取得反抗失效判决晦气作用的过后救援手腕。本文的写作目标在于推动对法国第三人撤消之诉轨制的深刻研究，特别是为评论辩论我国第三人撤消之诉轨制的实用和完美成绩供给一份无益的参考文献。本文由导论并六章构成，其详细内容以下。本文以第一部门概述了该轨制的立法经纬，法语毕业论文，和其与其他不服裁判救援办法之间的关系。本文第二部门则是法国第三人撤消判决之诉的实质和功效成绩研究，个中的成绩认识是，第三人撤消判决之诉的性质是经由过程其在平易近事诉讼中的独有功效加以表现的，但倘使其现实功效可以经由过程其他诉讼轨制替换，第三人撤消判决之诉在实质上则是一种只具选择性而不具必定性的诉讼轨制，而若以为它在实质上是一种必定性的诉讼轨制，就必需解释其具有奇特的有别于其他不服请求救援办法的功效。法国通说以为，第三人撤消判决之诉具有在诉讼晚期阶段消除既判事项和颠覆欠妥推定代行诉讼（诉讼署理）成果这两个固有功效，即“两重功效说”。在认可第三人撤消判决之诉是具有必定性的诉讼轨制基本上，明白其实用规模也就成了完成其固有功效的保证。因为第三人撤消判决之诉是基于法国独有的既判力扩大实际和诉讼署理（代行诉讼）实际设置的诉讼轨制，故本文的第三部门将出力论述法国的既判力与诉讼署理之间的关系，而这一内容也是熟悉法国第三人撤消判决之诉固有性和特别性的基本。法国第三人撤消判决之诉是以判决效率对第三人扩大为条件树立的诉讼轨制，然依据法国既判事项威望轨制（法公法上既判力轨制）的划定，对判决效率的主体及于规模实用绝对效准绳，抑或判决效率不得及于当事人以外第三人。于此而言，法语论文，判决绝对效准绳与第三人撤消判决之诉仿佛在轨制设计上成为悖论。即，平易近事诉讼若贯彻判决绝对效准绳，则无第三人撤消判决之诉的实用余地；而若实施第三人撤消判决之诉轨制，则判决绝对效准绳必遇进击。因之，自第三人撤消判决之诉轨制设立之日起至今，这一“悖论”一向是法国粹界“悬而未决”之论题。第四部门则论述了法国第三人撤消判决之诉的组成要件。第五部门引见第三人撤消判决之诉的审理结构。本文第六部门在总结前述各部门内容的基本上，就法国第三人撤消判决之诉与我国第三人撤消判决之诉停止比拟研究，并在此研究进程中阐述我国第三人撤消判决之诉轨制的能够性走向及“命运”。 Abstract: Our country has set up the third person to withdraw the lawsuit, and this system is directly influenced by the French third people to withdraw the judgment of the appeal. The essence of Third French undo action is through the process of judgment by the third party to start the retrial power and subject qualification, so as to achieve the adverse effects of the judgment against failure after the rescue of wrist. The goal of this paper is to promote the study of the system of action of the third people in France. In particular, it provides a useful reference for the practice and perfection of the system of action of the third persons of our country. This paper is composed of an introduction and six chapters, which are as follows. In this paper, the first part of this paper summarizes the legislation of the system, and its relationship with the rest of the referee's rescue method. In this paper, the second part is the study of the essence and efficacy of the third people's judgment of the decision, the nature of the third people's revocation of the judgment is the unique effect of the legal proceedings, but if its practical effect can be replaced by other litigation system, the third person is a selective and not necessarily a certain system of litigation, if it is essentially a kind of system of litigation, it must explain its own unique and different from the request of the rescue approach. France said that third people cancel the appeal of res judicata judgment and subvert the presumption of defective elimination in the late stage of Litigation Procedure Act (action acting) results of these two intrinsic effect, "said two functions". In recognition of the third people to withdraw the judgment of the appeal is a certain system of litigation system, understand its practical scale has become the guarantee of the completion of its inherent efficacy. Because the third undo action is France's judgment of res judicata and litigation based on the expansion of real acting (act litigation) litigation system actually set, the third departments will discuss the relationship between the output of the French resjudicata and litigation acting, and this content is familiar with Third French withdrawal judgment v. the basic and special solid sex. Third French undo action is to expand the judgment litigation system for conditions set for third people to judge the efficiency, but according to the French prestige of res judicata system (public law of res judicata system) regulation, subject to the decision efficiency and scale efficiency of absolute utility criterion, or judgment efficiency may not reach to the third person of party. In this case, the judgment of the absolute criterion and the third person to withdraw the judgment as if on the design of the system is a paradox. That is, the civil litigation judgment if the implementation effect is not absolute criterion, third practical action to quash a sentence and if third people room; the implementation of undo judgment petition system judgment criterion, the absolute effect will encounter attack. Therefore, since Third People cancel judgment petition system set up the date, this "paradox" has always been the French community "in suspense". In the fourth part, the paper discusses the elements of the action of the third people in France. The fifth section introduces the trial structure of the third person to cancel the judgment of the case. In the sixth part of this paper, we summarize the contents of the above departments, and the third part of the decision to withdraw the judgment of the third people in China, and to discuss the possibility of the "fate of the system of the appeal system of the third persons in our country". 目录: |
