How Is It Right To Prosecute "Hide And Seek"?

Sometimes, like autumn chrysanthemums in movies, we want to find a way to find a court to prosecute the accused.

However, under the premise of impartial judicature, courts and judges can only act according to law.

If a judge is asked to do something beyond the law or even break the law because he does not understand the law, it will obviously be rejected or not.

As described in the October 24th edition of the five edition of the worker's daily, "sleepy" in the "network center", in the divorce case, apart from the rule of law, the distribution of the property and the child's custody, how does the judge manage the husband who has changed his mind and ask the parents to love their children? Today's paper is a record of the handling of the lawsuit by a judge assistant, and tells the difficulties of "Prosecution".

It is hoped that the message it conveys is that when you become a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit, do not ask the court to "get" the accused to the court for confrontation, because "the concubine and the concubines can not do it". Under the current legal framework, the defendant can not appear in court and the judge can default judgment. In addition, there is no other way; if he becomes a defendant, he should respond positively.

When some people do not respect

If you fail to abide by your commitments, you will be able to give negative comments to them unless there are clear terms of responsibility in the law.

In a sense, this is the price that must be paid by statute law.

When we understand what the court and judge can do and what they can not do, they will not only know more clearly about my right of action, but also when you are lawsuits, you will be more inclined to make better use of your rights, and at the same time, you will be more likely to "serve the lawsuit" and draw a conclusion for a lawsuit experience earlier, rather than surmise that "courts and judges are full of trouble".

According to the practical observation, the mentality of the parties who evade the "Prosecution" and how they are in such a psychological state will be so reckless or even despised. It can be analyzed that there are basically four kinds of mentality of such parties.

The first state of mind is also the most common case.

The parties predict that the result of the referee will be unfavorable to themselves, so they are unwilling to respond to the lawsuit and do not want to accept the result of the lawsuit.

The second is to believe that you can really escape.

Due to the large population flow and the lack of personal credit registration system, there are still some cases where the litigants are missing in the judicial practice, especially in the execution stage.

In this case, the number of single people working in different places is mostly.

The third is because of distrust of justice and distrust of courts.

The parties who have such misunderstandings often lack confidence in the outcome of the referee and believe that they will not be able to influence the referee's results regardless of whether they appear in court.

The fourth is caused by emotion, especially in family cases.

The interests dispute between the parties is just a representation, rooted in the accumulated resentment and hatred for a long time. Therefore, whether these parties are passive or responding to the court, there are more or less retaliation and emotional factors in their hearts.

For most people, the most difficult part of a judge's work is the application of laws to write judgments.

It is certainly not easy to write a judgment, but it is only the last "Shiver" of a case, though difficult, but at least controllable.

As a matter of fact, there is a big project that makes the court staff most headaches and most crying.

The so-called "Prosecution" is simply to serve the indictment.

According to

In the 125th provision, after the court accepts the plaintiff's application, the copy of the complaint and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff are delivered to the defendant, so as to let the defendant know that you are now in a "lawsuit".

Do not belittle this seemingly unskilled work, so called "everything is difficult at the beginning".

In China, the floating population has a wide and large number of migrant workers and non domicile living conditions. It is becoming more and more difficult to serve directly.

However, apart from the objective difficulties such as unauthorized work and unsettled whereabouts, the defendants maliciously evade the lawsuit and increase the workload of the judges serving the service.

The author has followed such a case that the defendant is a local resident who has lived in the district under the jurisdiction of the court.

When he learned that he might face a lawsuit, he changed the telephone number.

After filing the case, the court will dial the number provided by the plaintiff.

It happened that the defendant had other cases in court, and the staff found his new contact form from the dossier of another case.

After the call was reached, the defendant promised to take the indictment to the court in the afternoon.

But the judge waited all afternoon, and he did not show up.

On the second day of work, the judge called again, but the other side indicated that he was not the defendant himself. The defendant took his family on a trip and asked the court to contact again in half a month.

The third time I dial the phone, the other side in a clear voice, frequently used "not clear", "bad signal" to ignore the question.

After many efforts,

The defendant's home address and home phone number were found, but when the defendant made a home phone call, he asked a seven or eight year old girl to answer the phone.

It can be heard from the receiver, where adults are giving instructions to the little girl.

After we showed that the child had asked the parents to answer the phone, the adults next took the trouble to pick up the phone.

When the court asked him whether he was the defendant himself or his family, he later said he knew the defendant, and later he said he did not know the defendant, and did not answer the questions of the court.

No longer answer when dialing.

At this point, the court can only mail the litigation materials through the address found, and the other party refused to sign and return the mail.

With the guidance of the plaintiff, the staff came to the defendant's address after work, and the defendant did not open the door after seeing the staff of the court. After the court repeatedly explained the intention and the legal consequences of the negative response, it reluctantly opened the door, but still did not receive the prosecution materials.

The court held the service in strict accordance with the statutory lien service procedures.

At the same time, the defendant's letter of hearing and a summons of the court are sent to the defendant.

On the day of the hearing, the defendant did not give any notice to the court but he did not appear in court.

The court had to conduct a default hearing in accordance with the relevant provisions of the civil procedure law.

"Difficult to deliver" is one of the most difficult problems that perplex the court's trial.

In the case of such cases, the court is happening every day, and even threatens, scolding and abusing the staff of the court.

Before and after the drafting of the interpretation of the civil procedure law, statistics show that the judicial resources spent on the service process account for about 40% of the total.

The interpretation of the civil procedure law has given the court a lot of "forgiveness" in form than before.

For example, to explain the 131st provision, the party who has already arrived at the court refuses to sign the certificate of return and considers it to be served.

Interpretation of the 141st provision, the date of sentencing is the date of serving the judgment. The date when the party's judgment is not present or refuses to accept the referee after entering the court does not affect the effectiveness of the service, nor does it affect the calculation of the appeal period.

This provision fully reflects the seriousness of the regular sentencing system and the punitive nature of the parties' attitude towards the judicial authority.