| 英文摘要 |
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. |
