建国后,中国的诉讼费用制度先后经历了无偿裁判、个别收费及普遍 收费三个阶段. 在民事诉讼中,当事人起诉时原则上要预交诉讼费用,最 终根据裁判结果,确定诉讼费用的负担. 现行诉讼费用预交、退费制度, 存在多个当事人交费和法院退费的节点,无形中增加了当事人诉讼成本 及法院的司法成本. 司法救助范围的狭窄,给法人组织,尤其是民营企业 依法行使诉权造成了困难,影响了诉讼程序的进行. 同时,中国民事案件 诉讼费用的相关规定存在着可操作性差,费率过高等问题. 因此,有必要 对诉讼费用预交制度进行适当的立法修正,建立诉后交纳制度. 这一制度 与“受益者分担”原理是一脉相承的,同样会发挥制裁民事违法行为,减少 纳税人负担和国家财政开支的功能,有助于进一步保护当事人的诉权, 为民营经济发展提供更加有力的司法服务和保障,有助于人民法院节约 人力资源. 这一制度,是将征收诉讼费用的节点推迟到结案之后,而不是 推动不收取诉讼费用,不会造成诉讼费用的流失. 这一制度,仍然会要求 当事人考虑诉讼的必要性,不会必然导致当事人滥用诉权. 诚然,该制度 在运行过程中,人民法院要充分履行释明义务,告知当事人的诉讼风 险,告知当事人诉后仍需要根据裁判结果交纳诉讼费用,而非不交纳诉 讼费用. 同时,为了防止对中国国家主权和经济利益造成负面的影响,对 于涉外民商事纠纷的原告为外国公民、企业或者组织时,仍然实行诉讼 费用预交制度.
After the founding of the People's Republic of China, China's litigation cost system has gone through three stages: free judgment, individual charge and universal charge. In civil action, litigant should pay lawsuit cost in advance when they sue, and then the final actual cost of lawsuit should be decided based on the adjudicates result. The current system of pre-payment and refund of litigation costs has multiple nodes of payment by parties and refund by courts, which virtually increases the litigation costs of parties and judicial costs of courts. The narrow scope of judicial assistance makes it difficult for legal person organizations, especially private enterprises, to exercise their litigation rights in accordance with the law and affects the proceeding of litigation procedures. At the same time, the related provision of civil litigation expenses system is inefficient and rate of litigation cost is very high. Therefore, it is necessary to make appropriate legislative amendments to the system of pre-payment of litigation costs and establish a post-litigation payment system. This system is in the same line with the principle of “beneficiary sharing”, and it will also play the role of sanctifying civil illegal ACTS and reducing the burden of taxpayers and state financial expenditure. It helps to protect the litigant's right of action and save human resources, and will provide more powerful judicial services and guarantee for the development of private economy. This system is to defer the collection of litigation costs to the end of the case, rather than promote the non-collection of litigation costs, which will not cause the loss of litigation costs. This system, still requiring the parties to consider the necessity of litigation, will not necessarily lead to the abuse of litigation parties. Admittedly, in the process of operation of this system, the people's court should fully fulfill the obligation of interpretation by informing the parties of the litigation risk and that they still need to pay the litigation costs according to the judgment results after the litigation, rather than not to pay the litigation costs. At the same time, in order to prevent negative impact on China's national sovereignty and economic interests, when the plaintiff in civil and commercial disputes involving foreign nationals is a foreign citizen, enterprise or organization, the system of advance payment of litigation expenses shall still be implemented.