計畫審理之研究——以英美法為借鏡

為因應現今民事訴訟案件量增多、類型及紛爭複雜化，並改善歷來法官審理負擔沈重及訴訟延滯等問題，使當事人得以儘速解決紛爭，我國民事訴訟法於2000年進行大幅度修正，採行集中審理制度。後司法院於2020年8月通過民訴法修正草案，其中第二編第一章新增第一節之一計畫審理，期能提升民事訴訟效能，以落實集中審理之目標。為配合專業分工以更適切處理紛爭，立法院另於2019年12月通過並施行商業事件審理法，2023年1月三讀通過智慧財產案件審理法，並於同年8月30日正式施行，以回應外界對於迅速、專業及妥適審理商業事件及智慧財產案件之期待。商審法第38條規定法院及當事人應有計畫進行訴訟程序，以保障當事人受迅速審判及程序公正對待之權利，並確保司法資源有效運用；同法第39條至第41條規定法院應與當事人商定審理計畫，就訴訟程序之進行預做安排，提升訴訟效率。智審法第18條亦參照商審法，規定法院應與當事人商定審理計畫，同樣要求智財案件必須有計畫進行，以防止訴訟延滯及浪費司法資源。就此修法趨勢來看，「計畫審理」儼然成為我國訴訟進行之指導原則，審理計畫更是建構集中審理及促進訴訟不可或缺之一塊拼圖。商業事件及智慧財產案件之訴訟審理模式及未來走向更會作為其他法律修正之參考藍圖，如何妥善解釋及適用該等法律計畫審理及審理計畫之規定，對於法律運用及實際操作影響深遠，實值得吾人付諸心力就該等規範予以分析及檢討。關於計畫審理及審理計畫之訂定，實與英美法上案件管理制度具高度相似性。於普通法系採取當事人對抗制下，訴訟程序常流於高昂費用、耗費資源及延滯，為改善此種忽略時間及資源等程序利益之問題，美國於1950年及1960年間開始發展案件管理，後對其聯邦民事訴訟規則第16條進行大幅度修正。從此，預審會議被高度重視，法官管理案件之權限被加以強化，期能改善過往民事訴訟程序之缺失。英國於1999年採納伍爾夫爵士之建議而定立新民事訴訟規則與其實務指引，一改法官歷來消極角色，賦予其介入訴訟流程進行管控之權力，並配合小額、速軌、中級軌道及多軌等四種訴訟軌道之案件分流，試圖透過完整案件管理之架構，使法官得訂立合乎個案需求之程序計畫及發布指引命令，確保紛爭於合理時間內解決，並兼顧法院及當事人之資源成本。該等國家案件管理制度之發展起源早，且運作已行之有年，有相當經驗及研究之累積，實務上亦有許多具體案例可供檢視。為妥善解釋及適用我國商審法及智審法上計畫審理及審理計畫之規定，即有參考英美法之必要。以其作為比較考察對象，其等制度上有何優點及缺點，於檢討我國相關規定及於實務運用時能發揮指示及警惕之功能，以去蕪存菁，真正達成計畫性審理，以保障當事人獲得迅速、經濟、正確且慎重裁判之目標。本文共計區分為五章。第一章為緒論，先說明本文研究主軸之動機，並提出問題意識，同時介紹本文之研究方法、比較法選用、研究範圍及篇章架構。第二章聚焦於美國法，第一節先梳理美國歷來民事訴訟程序之缺失、案件管理之起源及聯邦民事訴訟規則之歷史演進；第二節概覽案件管理之意義、條文規範及立法架構；第三節以聯邦民事訴訟規則第16條為中心，就預定進度會議、預定進度命令、預審會議、預審命令、最終預審會議及最終預審命令等項目，分別闡述其目的、意義、主體、方式、內容、效力及制裁措施等詳細內涵；第四節以對於商業訴訟具代表意義之紐約州為對象，延伸探討一般事件與商業事件之差異、案件管理強制適用之差別及需求；第五節點出目前美國法上案件管理適用所出現之問題、隱憂及可能之解方。第三章著重於英國法，第一節先從舊民事訴訟程序之問題出發，逐一理清案件管理制度之起源、背景及新民事訴訟規則之歷史脈絡演變；第二節就英國案件管理之意義、定位、條文架構及遠程目的進行粗略說明；第三節詳細分析各種案件管理措施之意義、適用、方式、內容及制裁；第四節則縮小焦點於商業事件之案件管理，以民事訴訟規則第58章、實務指引第58章、商事法庭指引及商事法院長期審判小組報告與建議等為探討對象，闡述商業事件上案件管理之特色與操作，比較一般事件和商業事件之性質及案件管理運用差異性；第五節點出案件管理制度之潛在問題，並嘗試從其制度找出可行之解方，藉以和美國法及我國法交互討論。第四章以商審法及智審法為中心，第一節先考察我國至今民事訴訟程序之問題，梳理現行法下已存之法規與制度；第二節著重於商審法，詳細說明商審法上計畫審理及審理計畫之規定，第一項至第三項分別就立法背景與歷程、目的及架構為初步介紹；第四項則分別研討計畫審理之宣示、審理計畫之商定、審判長訂定攻擊或防禦方法提出之期間等項目，和英美法制度互為切磋，並一一就計畫審理之要求、審理計畫之意義、性質、時點、方式、範圍、主體、強制性、內容、變更及制裁等等，為詳細分析。第三節探討智審法，主要針對智審法上規定為分析，第一項至第三項同樣先針對立法背景與歷程、目的及架構為闡述；第四項詳細說明計畫審理之要求、審理計畫商定之各詳細內容，以及違反審理計畫之制裁效果。末章為結論，將延伸以英美法制度問題為主，探討於我國體制下是否亦可能產生相同缺失，試圖提出解方。再者，簡要回顧本文比較英美法制度之發現，並就計畫審理為總結、展現研究成果及回應最初之提問，以作為將來探討相似議題之參考。

關鍵字

案件管理；預審程序；計畫審理；審理計畫；有計畫進行訴訟程序；失權效

並列摘要

In response to the increase of civil litigation cases, the complexity of cases and disputes, and in order to ameliorate the problems of the heavy burden on judges and delays in litigation, Code of Civil Procedure was amended in 2000 to adopt the system of concentrated trial. In August 2020, the draft amendment of Code of Civil Procedure was passed, in which a new Section 1-1 of Chapter 1 of Part II was added to enhance the efficiency of civil litigation to reach the goal of concentrated trial. Later on, in response to the public's expectation for prompt, professional and appropriate adjudication of commercial cases and intellectual property cases, the Legislative Yuan passed Commercial Case Adjudication Act in December 2019 and the amendment of Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act in January 2023 to handle disputes more professionally and appropriately. Article 38 of Commercial Case Adjudication Act provides that the court and the parties should have a plan for the proceedings to guarantee a speedy trial, procedural fairness, and the efficient use of judicial resources. Articles 39 to 41 of the same law provide that the court should discuss and formulate a trial plan with the parties, so as to make arrangements for the conduct of proceedings and to enhance the efficiency of the litigation. Article 18 of Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act also requires that intellectual property cases must be conducted in a planned manner to prevent delays in litigation and waste of judicial resources. In view of this trend, "systematic trial" has become a guiding principle for civil litigation, and trial plan is an indispensable part for the construction of concentrated trial. How to properly interpret and apply the provisions of these laws on systematic trial and trial plan will have a far-reaching impact on the application of the law and its practical operation, and it is worthwhile for us to analyze and review these norms with great effort. The systematic trial is highly similar to the common law case management system. Under the adversarial system, litigation proceedings are often costly, resource-intensive, and delayed. In order to ameliorate these problems, the United States began to develop case management and made substantial amendments to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Since then, the authority of judges to manage cases has been strengthened. In 1999, the United Kingdom established new Civil Procedure Rules, changing the negative role of judges, giving them the power to intervene in the litigation process for control and management, as well as with the diversion of cases into four tracks to ensure that disputes are resolved in a reasonable period of time through the complete case management structure. Case management systems in these countries have early origins and have been in operation for many years, with considerable experiences and cases for review. In order to appropriately interpret and apply the provisions of our rules, it is necessary to refer to the American and English laws. Finding out the strengths and weaknesses of these systems and eliminating their defects could help us to truly achieve the goal of systematic trial and to ensure that the parties can obtain a speedy, cost-effective, correct, and prudent decision. This thesis consists of five chapters. The first chapter is the introduction, which firstly explains the motivation of the topic, puts forward the problem awareness, and introduces the research methodology, the choice of comparative method, the scope of the study, and the chapter structure of this thesis. Chapter 2 focuses on American Law, introducing the historical evolution of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, its case management tools, how New York State handles commercial cases and the problems of its system. Chapter 3 focuses on English Law, introducing the development of its case management system, different management tools in Civil Procedure Rules, how it copes with commercial cases and possible problems of its system. Chapter 4 centers on our Commercial Case Adjudication Act and Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act, illustrating and analyzing our rules of systematic trial and trial plan to make comparisons of Anglo-American Law and to have a comprehensive understanding of our structure. Last chapter summarizes the conclusion of this thesis.