摘要： 执行证书的功能与定位直接关系到公证与执行程序能否顺利衔接,也是现有法律规范及新近执行法草案没有终局定论的关键问题。为调和公证机构扩张性审查范围与限缩性立法趋势之间的紧张关系,我国应当将证明权划分为可能构成侵权的责任范围(执行力的形式要件、实体要件、主观范围)与免于损害赔偿的服务范围(执行力的客观范围、时间范围)。公证核实义务的履行程序隐含着债权人的证明责任分配不合理、债务人的异议机制低效用、公证机构的核实责任过重等问题,应当回归形式化审查及其形式化标准。执行证书已经形成由复查及其投诉组成的行业性内部救济机制,没有必要再配设外部性独立救济机制,以矫正司法实务围绕执行证书再生争议的倾向。

关键词: 民事执行法, 公证债权文书, 执行文, 执行审查, 执行救济

Abstract: The function and positioning of the enforcement certificate is directly related to smooth interface between notary and enforcement procedures, and is also a key issue that the existing legal norms and the new draft of civil enforcement law do not conclusively address.In order to reconcile the tension between expansive scope of notary's scrutiny and restrictive legislative trend, the proving power should be divided into the scope of liability that may constitute a tort(including formal elements, substantive elements, subjective scope of enforceability)and the scope of services that are exempt from damages (including objective scope, temporal scope of enforceability). The procedure for the fulfillment of notarial verification obligation implies unreasonable allocation of the creditor's burden of proof, low utility of the debtor's objection mechanism and excessive verification responsibilitie of the notary.So the verification of enforcement procedure should return to formal review and formal standard.The enforcement certificate has resulted in an industry-wide internal remedial mechanism consisting of reviews and their complaints.An external and independent remedial mechanism shall not be set up, so as to rectify the tendency of judicial practice revitalizing disputes around the enforcement certificate.

Key words: Civil Enforcement Law, Notarized Debt Instrument, Enforcement Document, Executive Review, Executive Relief