作者：段文波
作者介绍：西南政法大学教授
出版日期：2021年12月9日
内容提要 在续审制下，我国民事诉讼法规定原则上应当组成合议庭开庭审理上诉案 件。但在司法实践中不开庭审理却成为常态，并异化为以一审庭审笔录为中心的合议庭书 面间接审理。这不仅违反了直接主义、口头主义，剥夺了当事人接受裁判的权利，而且导致 二审纠错和监督一审的机能丧失。因此，二审应贯彻开庭审理原则，仅限欠缺上诉要件或就 裁定提起的上诉案件可不开庭。二审开庭是一审的继续，仍然包括口头辩论与法庭调查两 个部分。其中所获得的诉讼资料和证据资料与一审构成一个整体并作为二审裁判的基础。 一审中形成的诉讼状态和当事人实施的诉讼行为在二审中继续有效。
关键词 续审制 书面审 直接主义 口头辩论 法庭调查
Abstract: In continuation of the trial system, China’s civil procedure law provides that, in principle, a full court should be formed to hold oral hearings of the appealed case. But in judicial practice, it has become the norm for the judge in charge to conduct investigative inquiries and discretionary hearings without a trial, which in turn alienates into a written indirect hearing by the full curt centered on the transcript of the first instance trial. The absence of a court hearing not only violates directness and verbalism, deprives the parties of the right to a trial, but also leads to the loss of the function of error correction and supervision of the first instance in the second instance. Therefore, the principle of hearing should be implemented in the second trial, and the appeal should only be dismissed from the hearing if the appeal is brought against a civil ruling or lacks appeal elements. The second instance is the continuation of the first instance. And it still consists of two parts: oral arguments and courtroom investigations. The information on the proceedings and the evidence obtained in the first and second trials form a whole, which serves as the basis for the decision in the second trial. The litigation state formed in the first instance, and the litigation acts performed by the parties continue to be valid in the second instance.