兩岸民事司法互助之司法文書送達實務成效檢視

Review the Achievements of Fulfilling the Legal Service of the Agreement of Preventing Crime and Mutual Legal Assistant on Cross-Strait

本文研究動機在於，海峽兩岸國際私法研討會的主題是兩岸司法互助成效研究，加上兩岸從2009年4月簽署司法互助協議至今2016年12月已經9年又8個月，萌生成效關心心情，故開始著手進行本論文之資料蒐集與研究。本文研究範圍限制在兩岸司法互助的文書送達面向。本文相關統計資料取得過程十分曲折與耐人尋味，提供未來改善參考。中國大陸的司法互助文書送達之法規依據是最高人民法院《人民法院辦理海峽兩岸送達文書和調查取證司法互助案件之規定》，依據該法第1條規定，不問民刑事案件，均可適用之。此外，中國大陸之法規依據尚有《最高人民法院關於涉台民事訴訟文書送達的若干規定》。臺灣之法規依據是《臺灣地區與大陸地區兩岸人民關係條例》第8條以及行政院大陸委員會與財團法人海峽交流基金會簽訂之委託契約及各機關請行政院大陸委員會統籌委託財團法人海峽交流基金會處理有關遣返送暨文書送達及查證事項一覽表。本文研究兩岸司法互助成效之統計數字，從中觀察成效結果。從2009年10月1日到2016年10月31日送達司法文書比中國大陸請求臺灣送達的案件數7年間（未區分法院或檢察署或其他機關），新收5萬多件，結案數字是將近4萬件，感覺光是文書送達的司法協助工作就負擔相當沉重。臺灣這邊進行中國大陸的司法文書送達是14,000件左右，催收案件只有2件，結案率高達96%，效果非常好。又比較兩岸新收案件數，中國大陸比臺灣多了37,749件；比較兩岸結案件數，中國大陸完成的件數比臺灣完成的件數多了26,391件，會有這等差距是因為所收件數相差距離太大，但是以結案比例計算的話，臺灣請求中國大陸協助而中國大陸完成的結案件數的卻比臺灣少了19%。臺灣的結案率值得鼓勵，但中國大陸的收件量與結案量數字加起來就非常負擔沉重，辛勞值得嘉許。本文另針對（1）兩岸法院之司法互助效率比較、（2）兩岸檢察署之司法互助效率比較、（3）兩岸司法機關之司法互助效率比較、（4）臺灣法院請求中國大陸法院送達司法文書歷年與單年度統計、（5）臺灣檢察署請求中國大陸檢察院送達司法文書歷年與單年度統計等內容分析與比較，並提出中國大陸送達案例與臺灣送達成效未彰之內容，作為未來改進之道。中國大陸最高人民法院資料顯示，該案例令人看了會動容，反觀臺灣沒有相關類似案例可供撰文，著屬可惜。最後建議，兩岸交流資訊應公開化，學術研究性質中立而透明，行政單位無須嚴加防範。

The motivation of writing this paper is that the theme of the International Private Law Seminar on Cross-Straits is the study on the effectiveness of mutual legal assistance. The Agreement of Preventing Crime And Mutual legal Assistant on Cross-Strait is signed in 2009. In addition, I started to collect and research the materials to review the achievements of fulfilling the legal service of The Agreement of Preventing Crime and Mutual Legal Assistant on Cross-Strait.The scope of this paper is limited to the delivery of documents for cross-strait mutual legal assistance.The process of obtaining relevant statistical data in this article is very tortuous, providing for a reference for the future improvement.The statute basis for delivering documents of judicial mutual assistance in mainland China is the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the handling of cross-strait service documents and mutual legal assistance cases for investigation and evidence collection by the People’s Court. According to Article 1 of the Act, it is applicable of civil and criminal cases. The provisions for delivering judicial docutment in Mainland China also has the regulation of “The Supreme People’s Court on the service of Taiwan-related civil litigation documents”. In Taiwan, the Article 8 of People’s Relations between the Taiwan and Mainland China is the legal basis of dealing with the related affiars, and the Entrustment Agreement between the Mainland Commission of the Executive Yuan and the Straits Exchange Foundation of the Financial Institutions, and a list of that The Mainland Commission of the Executive Yuan authorizes the Executive Yuan and the Straits Exchange Foundation to deal with the matters to Mainland China governs all related affairs.Through the statistics on the effectiveness of mutual legal assistance across the Taiwan Strait, we can observe the results of the results.In the seven years from the October 1, 2009 to October 31, 2016, the number of cases in which the judicial documents were served from Taiwan to Mainland China (without distinguishing between the courts or the procuratorate or other agencies). More than 50,000 new cases were received, and nearly 40,000 people were fulfilled. The burden of delivering work is quite heavy.The total number of judicial documents that Taiwan sent to reach Mainland China was about 14,000. There were only 2 collection cases, and the settlement rate was as high as 96%. The effect was very good.Among the number of new cases received, Mainland China has received more than 37,749 cases from Taiwan. Comparing the number of cases, completed in Mainland China is 26,391 more than completed in Taiwan. There will be such a gap because the number of cases received is too far apart. But in terms of the proportion of cases closed, Taiwan’s request for assistance from Mainland China and the number of cases completed in mainland China is 19% less than that of Taiwan. Taiwan’s settlement rate is worth encouraging, but the number of receipts and settlements in Mainland China is very difficult to bear, and hard work is commendable.This article also compares other aspects.According to the information of the Supreme People’s Court of China, the case is very pleasing, and it is a pity that there are no similar cases in Taiwan of writing.Finally, it is suggested that cross-strait exchange information should be made public, that academic research is neutral and transparent, so administrative units need not be strictly guarded.