海事诉讼中电子数据的证据能力规则
|
摘要
电子数据的证据能力规则包括真实性、合法性和关联性认证规则。电子数据的真实性认证规则应放弃传统的最佳证据规则,转而考虑电子数据的内容完整性和可靠性。电子数据的合法性认证规则为电子数据的取证程序,应当以保护当事人合法权益为价值取向,从主体、方式和范围三方面构建这一程序。证据的关联性系事实判断而非法律判断,现代民事诉讼法多交由自由心证规则处理,相较于其他类型的证据,在关联性审查判断上,电子数据并无特殊之处,仍应由法官自由心证决定。
In China,rules of evidence ability include the authentication rules of authenticity,legitimacy and relevance. The authentication rules of authenticity of electronic data should abandon the rule of best evidence and adopt the standard of integrity and reliability of electronic data. The authentication rules of legitimacy of electronic data is the procedure of electronic data collection with the value orientation of protecting legitimate rights and interests of the parties,which is to be constructed from the perspective of subject,method and scope. The relevance of evidences is not a legal judgment but a factual judgment,so there are few specialized provisions on it in modern civil procedure laws and instead there are rules of discretional evidence. Compared to other types of evidences,there is no special place in the examination and judgment of relevance of electronic data,judges can deal with it by using rules of discretional evidence.
In China,rules of evidence ability include the authentication rules of authenticity,legitimacy and relevance. The authentication rules of authenticity of electronic data should abandon the rule of best evidence and adopt the standard of integrity and reliability of electronic data. The authentication rules of legitimacy of electronic data is the procedure of electronic data collection with the value orientation of protecting legitimate rights and interests of the parties,which is to be constructed from the perspective of subject,method and scope. The relevance of evidences is not a legal judgment but a factual judgment,so there are few specialized provisions on it in modern civil procedure laws and instead there are rules of discretional evidence. Compared to other types of evidences,there is no special place in the examination and judgment of relevance of electronic data,judges can deal with it by using rules of discretional evidence.
引文
[1]阿里巴巴“联姻”马士基航运,新物流来了![EB/OL].(2016-12-28)[2017-02-14].http://mini.eastday.com/a/161228042349018.html.Alibaba cooperated with Maersk Line,the new logistics came![EB/OL].(2016-12-28)[2017-02-14].http://mini.eastday.com/a/161228042349018.html.(in Chinese)
[2]聂昭伟.证明力与证据能力规则演变规律探究---我国证据规则立法方向的理性选择[J].西南政法大学学报,2007,9(2):33.NIE Zhao-wei.Ton the regulation of the rules of the force and the qualification of evidence-the reasonable choice of the lawmaking direction of evidence rules in China[J].Journal of Southwest University of Political Science and Law,2007,9(2):33.(in Chinese)
[3]蔡惠霞.英国最佳证据规则之发展[J].司法改革论评,2013(2):391.CAI Hui-xia.The development of best evidence rule in UK[J].Judicial Reform Review,2013(2):391.(in Chinese)
[4]龙卫球,裴炜.电子证据的概念与审查认定规则的构建研究[J].北京航空航天大学学报(社会科学版),2016,29(2):41.LONG Wei-qiu,PEI Wei.Concept and authentication rules of digital evidence[J].Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics(Social Science Edition),2016,29(2):41.(in Chinese)
[5]刘品新.论电子证据的原件理论[J].法律科学,2009(5):120-124.LIU Pin-xin.Study of original rule of electronic evidence[J].Science of Law,2009(5):120-124.(in Chinese)
[6]汪振林.电子数据分类研究[J].重庆邮电大学学报(社会科学版),2013(5):22.WANG Zhen-lin.Classification of electronic data[J].Journal of Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications(Social Science Edition),2013(5):22.(in Chinese)
[7]陈浩.网络即时通讯记录证据能力规则研究[J].河南财经政法大学学报,2016(6):38.CHEN Hao.An research on the instant messaging data from the perspective of evidence ability rules[J].Journal of Henan University of Economics and Law,2016(6):38.(in Chinese)
[8]黄明耀.民事诉讼证据合法性---从最高法院关于录音证据的司法解释谈起[J].现代法学,2002,24(3):78.HUANG Ming-yao.The legitimacy of evidence in the civil litigation[J].Modern Law Science,2002,24(3):78.(in Chinese)
[9]陈桂明,计格非.民事诉讼证据合法性的重新解读[J].国家检察官学院学报,2005,13(2):101.CHEN Gui-ming,JI Ge-fei.Re-interpretation of the legitimacy of evidence in civil proceedings[J].Journal of National Procurators College,2005,13(2):101.(in Chinese)
(1)关于电子邮件的证据能力,参见(2016)鄂72民初11号民事判决书。关于QQ聊天记录的证据能力,参见(2016)鄂72民初592号民事判决书和(2016)鄂72民初593号民事判决书。
(2)关于企业内部无纸化办公系统电子数据的证据能力,参见(2016)鄂72民初136号民事判决书。
(1)电子报关单出现在(2015)武海法商字第00598号案中。
(2)参见《国家税务总局关于推行通过增值税电子发票系统开具的增值税电子普通发票有关问题的公告》(国家税务总局公告2015年第84号)。
(3)关于电子支付凭证的证据能力,参见(2015)武海法商字第01096号民事判决书。
(4)关于电子文档的证据能力,参见(2016)鄂72民初1902号民事判决书。
(5)关于网页资料的证据能力,参见(2013)民提字第6号和(2013)民提字第7号民事判决书。
(6)关于公共监控记录的证据能力,参见(2015)武海法商字第01005号民事判决书。
(7)关于原始载体说的现实运用,参见(2016)鄂72民初1852号民事判决书。
(8)关于经公证的QQ聊天记录的证据认定观点,参见(2016)鄂72民初592号和(2016)鄂72民初593号民事判决书。
(1)武汉海事法院审理(2016)鄂72民初136号案时,有法官提出尽管原告对其电子办公系统中的相关电子数据进行公证,但未对该电子数据的日志文件进行公证,不能证明该电子数据未被篡改,不能证明该电子数据的真实性。
[2]聂昭伟.证明力与证据能力规则演变规律探究---我国证据规则立法方向的理性选择[J].西南政法大学学报,2007,9(2):33.NIE Zhao-wei.Ton the regulation of the rules of the force and the qualification of evidence-the reasonable choice of the lawmaking direction of evidence rules in China[J].Journal of Southwest University of Political Science and Law,2007,9(2):33.(in Chinese)
[3]蔡惠霞.英国最佳证据规则之发展[J].司法改革论评,2013(2):391.CAI Hui-xia.The development of best evidence rule in UK[J].Judicial Reform Review,2013(2):391.(in Chinese)
[4]龙卫球,裴炜.电子证据的概念与审查认定规则的构建研究[J].北京航空航天大学学报(社会科学版),2016,29(2):41.LONG Wei-qiu,PEI Wei.Concept and authentication rules of digital evidence[J].Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics(Social Science Edition),2016,29(2):41.(in Chinese)
[5]刘品新.论电子证据的原件理论[J].法律科学,2009(5):120-124.LIU Pin-xin.Study of original rule of electronic evidence[J].Science of Law,2009(5):120-124.(in Chinese)
[6]汪振林.电子数据分类研究[J].重庆邮电大学学报(社会科学版),2013(5):22.WANG Zhen-lin.Classification of electronic data[J].Journal of Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications(Social Science Edition),2013(5):22.(in Chinese)
[7]陈浩.网络即时通讯记录证据能力规则研究[J].河南财经政法大学学报,2016(6):38.CHEN Hao.An research on the instant messaging data from the perspective of evidence ability rules[J].Journal of Henan University of Economics and Law,2016(6):38.(in Chinese)
[8]黄明耀.民事诉讼证据合法性---从最高法院关于录音证据的司法解释谈起[J].现代法学,2002,24(3):78.HUANG Ming-yao.The legitimacy of evidence in the civil litigation[J].Modern Law Science,2002,24(3):78.(in Chinese)
[9]陈桂明,计格非.民事诉讼证据合法性的重新解读[J].国家检察官学院学报,2005,13(2):101.CHEN Gui-ming,JI Ge-fei.Re-interpretation of the legitimacy of evidence in civil proceedings[J].Journal of National Procurators College,2005,13(2):101.(in Chinese)
(1)关于电子邮件的证据能力,参见(2016)鄂72民初11号民事判决书。关于QQ聊天记录的证据能力,参见(2016)鄂72民初592号民事判决书和(2016)鄂72民初593号民事判决书。
(2)关于企业内部无纸化办公系统电子数据的证据能力,参见(2016)鄂72民初136号民事判决书。
(1)电子报关单出现在(2015)武海法商字第00598号案中。
(2)参见《国家税务总局关于推行通过增值税电子发票系统开具的增值税电子普通发票有关问题的公告》(国家税务总局公告2015年第84号)。
(3)关于电子支付凭证的证据能力,参见(2015)武海法商字第01096号民事判决书。
(4)关于电子文档的证据能力,参见(2016)鄂72民初1902号民事判决书。
(5)关于网页资料的证据能力,参见(2013)民提字第6号和(2013)民提字第7号民事判决书。
(6)关于公共监控记录的证据能力,参见(2015)武海法商字第01005号民事判决书。
(7)关于原始载体说的现实运用,参见(2016)鄂72民初1852号民事判决书。
(8)关于经公证的QQ聊天记录的证据认定观点,参见(2016)鄂72民初592号和(2016)鄂72民初593号民事判决书。
(1)武汉海事法院审理(2016)鄂72民初136号案时,有法官提出尽管原告对其电子办公系统中的相关电子数据进行公证,但未对该电子数据的日志文件进行公证,不能证明该电子数据未被篡改,不能证明该电子数据的真实性。