将违反民事案件审理期限制度故意拖延办案给当事人造成损失的行为或有重大过失拖延办案给当事人造成严重损失的行为纳入国家赔偿的范围。人民法院赔偿损失后应当责令有故意或重大过失的有关责任人员承担全部或部分赔偿费用。对有故意或者重大过失的有关责任人员，有关机关应当依法给予行政处分，构成犯罪的，应当依法追究刑事责任。
结 语
笔者在本文中试图以价值分析和实证分析两种方法对民事案件审理期限制度进行尽可能多方位的研究，但由于主观努力和客观条件两个维度的限制而必定存在缺陷。尤其不应回避的是，由于民事案件审理期限制度的良好设计和运行需要立案制度、鉴定制度、送达制度、公告制度、中止审理制度、延期审理制度等制度的支持与配套，现有民事案件审理期限制度存在的问题不可能在其自身的框架内完全解决，所以，笔者在本文中仅局限于民事案件审理期限制度自身的框架内寻求解决方案的研究存在可指责之处的可能性是很大的。
Abstract
The system of time limit of civil trial has been specified in detail by sources of law in existence in our country, carried out by People’s Court at a high value. But lots of specialists are apt to abolish this system, as law-developed countries do. On the basis of the fact that there are a great many skilled and experienced justice and enough other systems which can equally control the juridical power of court and protect the procedural rights of parties, law-developed countries lack in this system . In order to make this system better, we must take factual circumstances of China and relevant legal consciousness of citizens into consideration.
On our opinions, the system of time limit of civil trial should regulate the juridical power of court singly. This system regards controlling the juridical power as its direct aim and achieving judicatory benefits as ultimate aim. The relationship between controlling the juridical power and achieving judicatory benefits is the interactive relationship between direct aim and ultimate aim. Achieving judicatory benefits is the reference-standard and direction of controlling the juridical power. Controlling the juridical power is the premise and essential condition of achieving judicatory benefits. If the nature of justice of this system doesn’t regard controlling the juridical power as its direct aim and achieving judicatory benefits as ultimate aim, it will be difficult to explain the legal reasons why we build up this system and will result in the dissimilation of putting this system in force.
The judicial interpretation of The Supreme People’s Court with regard to this system is illegal. Such illegal interpretation is easy to erode the principle of power division and counteract the hard-won result from the pursuit of independence of jurisdiction. The validity of the system of time limit of civil trial in existence must be mended by stricter manner.
The primary problems of the system of time limit of civil trial in existence can be summarized as follows:(1)It can’t make its length certain.(2)Prescribing the reasons of prolonging with pure pattern is easy to bring about the abuse of the right of discretion.(3)The system of prolonging time limit of civil trial is accompanied with the strong characteristics of doctrine of function and power and disregards the procedural rights of parties.(4)The system of time limit of civil trial in second instance doesn’t distinguish the appealing cases which were applied in ordinary proceedings in first instance from the appealing cases which were applied in summary proceedings in first instance. Such practice is opposite to the demand of separation of the complicated cases from the simple cases.(5)The system of time limit of civil trial in retrial instance is equal to the system in first instance or in second instance. Such practice doesn’t fix on the demand of the fact that retrial system is the exception of the system of trial grade.(6)It is devoid of the system of time limit of civil trial towards to foreign civil case. Such practice doesn’t fix on the general demand of international universal rules.(7)The disciplinary measures of breaking the system of time limit of civil trial are incapable. It can’t put certain conduct which damages to parties on account of breaking the system and delaying dealing with civil cases into the confine of state compensation. It is short in procedural regulations in procedural law.
The study on the system of prolonging time limit of civil trial with the method of demonstration analysis bears important operation significance and verifies relevant fruits in theory. In order to reform the system of time limit of civil trial, we should pay much attention to the statistical findings and analysis of the survey. It is inadvisable to put it aside or accept it without discrimination.
The system of time limit of civil trial must build on certain basic value and take up the guide of such basic value when in runs. We claim that (1) protecting rights is the principal value of the system and takes precedence of other basic values. (2)seeking for efficiency is the realistic value of the system.(3)restricting power is the intrinsic value of the system.
The reform in the system of time limit of civil trial must be lead into realistic view and take the following three aspects into consideration(1)the background that the society changes from traditional society to modern society.(2)the belief in juridical power of citizens.(3)the realistic thing that the making of justice is relatively low.
On the basis of selecting values and checking conditions, the reformative measures sum up to seven aspects. Its faults are unavoidable.
【注释】 通常意义上，民事案件审理期限制度在横向结构上不仅包括普通民事案件的审理期限制度，还包括刑事附带民事诉讼案件和行政附带民事诉讼案件的审理期限制度；民事案件审理期限制度在纵向结构上不仅包括民事案件的审结期限制度，还包括民事案件的执行期限制度。但必须说明的是，本文所论及的民事案件审理期限制度仅指普通民事案件的审结期限制度。
《
民事诉讼法》、《
海事诉讼特别程序法》、《最高人民法院关于适用<
中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>若干问题的意见》、《
最高人民法院关于严格执行案件审理期限制度的若干规定》和《
最高人民法院关于适用简易程序审理民事案件的若干规定》等对民事案件审理期限制度作出了较为详细的规定。
目前全国大部分法院实行的民事案件审理期限届满前的催办制度和超民事案件审理期限的定期通报制度以及2003年以来全国法院系统轰轰烈烈的清理超审理期限案件的努力可以有力的证成这一点。
笔者通过中国期刊全文数据库（CJFD）查询到的1994年到2004年12月间所有关于民事案件审理期限制度的论文在数量上不足10篇，在篇幅上多为5000字以下的短文，且没有对民事案件审理期限制度的各构成要素进行全面论及的论文；从论文的作者看，没有知名的学者对民事案件审理期限制度予以关注。尽管不是所有的学术期刊都加入了中国期刊全文数据库，尽管笔者对资料的占有难免存在局限，尽管也许有人必定在关注和研究民事案件审理期限制度，但是笔者认为，依据CJFD的数据信息得出“当前我国的民事诉讼法学对民事案件审理期限制度的研究显的十分薄弱，缺乏专门性和系统性的研究”的认知结论是可以成立的，可以避免以一种武断的研究态度来展开本文的努力。
