Quality Author Certification Recruitment
At a time when courts are under tremendous pressure from their caseload, mediation mechanisms are particularly important. It not only reduces the burden on the court, but also provides a more efficient and economical way for the parties to resolve their disputes. In the course of mediation, the parties may admit certain facts in order to reach a settlement, but in the special circumstances of mediation, the nature and legal consequences of such self-admission become complex and delicate.
In the traditional conception, self-admission means the admission of certain facts that are unfavorable to the person. This often means that the opposing party can be relieved of the burden of proof in the course of litigation, thus speeding up the process of case processing. However, in mediation, the parties' self-admission is often based on the purpose of reaching a settlement, rather than a pure admission of facts. This kind of self-admission for the purpose of reconciliation is different in legal effect from a mere admission of facts. For example, a party may admit a fact in mediation, but that recognition may be merely a strategy to reach a settlement rather than a confirmation of the truthfulness of the facts.
This peculiarity has caused a lot of confusion in legal practice. According to Article 107 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the admission of facts made by the parties in the course of litigation for the purpose of reaching a mediation agreement cannot be used as evidence against them in subsequent litigation. This provision is intended to encourage the parties to communicate openly during the mediation process and facilitate the conclusion of a settlement. However, this provision does not address the process of mediation outside of litigation. In mediation outside of litigation, whether the parties' self-admission has the same legal effect is still a vague issue in practice.
In practice, courts have different ways of dealing with the issue of self-admission in out-of-litigation mediation. According to the existing legal framework, in particular the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law and the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Proceedings, courts are usually inclined to directly apply the self-recognition rule of mediation in litigation. For example, in the 2015 Min Shen Zi No. 973 case, the Supreme People's Court did not treat the settlement agreement reached in advance as new evidence in the second instance. Even if the parties admit certain facts in an out-of-litigation conciliation, such admission may not necessarily be directly accepted in subsequent proceedings.
When dealing with the issue of self-admission, the court will usually consider the specific circumstances of the admission, such as the context in which the admission was made and whether it truly reflects the parties' intentions. This was reflected in the Jing 03 Min Zhong No. 6023 case of the Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court in 2018. The court distinguished between self-admission in litigation and self-admission outside litigation, emphasizing that the effect of self-admission outside litigation is different from that in litigation due to the lack of legal procedural protection. This judgment reflects the court's prudent consideration of the self-recognized nature of mediation, and also reflects the court's dual consideration of fairness and efficiency when handling mediation cases.
In practice, the court will also consider whether the parties have accepted the facts when they compromise in order to reach a mediation agreement. If it can be proved that the parties' self-admission was made for the purpose of reaching a mediation agreement, such self-admission should not be used as evidence against them in subsequent proceedings. This point is made clear in the provisions of the Supreme People's Court on evidence in civil proceedings. The court will usually judge this based on the specific circumstances of the case, such as whether there is other supporting evidence, whether the parties' self-admission contradicts other facts, etc.
In view of the particularity of self-recognition issues in mediation, it is particularly important to improve the existing legal provisions. Clarifying the rules of self-admission in litigation and out-of-litigation mediation can help reduce uncertainty in the application of law and ensure that the rights of the parties are better protected during the mediation process. In the case of conditional self-admission, the parties' self-admission is based on the premise that the mediation is successful, and if the mediation is unsuccessful, such admission should not constitute a valid admission of legal facts. This conditional self-recognition feature needs to be fully reflected and clarified in the legal provisions to avoid misunderstanding and abuse in practice.
As an important way to resolve civil disputes, mediation has demonstrated its unique value and efficiency in practice. However, with the deepening of judicial practice, the issue of self-recognition in mediation has gradually become prominent. In order to give better play to the role of the mediation mechanism and ensure the fair protection of the rights of both parties to the dispute, it is particularly necessary to improve and clarify the existing legal provisions. Through these efforts, the efficiency and fairness of the mediation mechanism can be further improved, and a more reasonable and efficient way to resolve civil disputes can be provided.