案例指导制度在审判实践中并未产生广泛的预期影响,重要原因之一是,关于如何在裁判文书中援引指导性案例,缺少具体规定。《〈关于案例指导工作的规定〉实施细则》中的相关内容,对此进行了细化和完善,但是仍然存在一些缺陷和不足。在启动程序方面,《实施细则》确定了两种途径:主动参照和被动回应诉讼方引述,前一种途径缺乏有效的激励机制,而后一种方式虽然没有受到普遍重视,但却值得大力提倡。在确定待决案件与指导性案例的相似点方面,《实施细则》确定基本案情和法律适用两个方面都需比较,但是,法律适用并不适宜作为相似性的判断标准。在直接援引对象方面,《实施细则》确定法官只能将裁判要点作为裁判理由被援引;实际上,指导性案例的其他部分(尤其是裁判理由部分)也完全能够成为援引的对象。要推动指导性案例被更加经常地援引,需要针对以上各方面的问题,降低援引的门槛,使得更多主体以更加便捷的方式参与其中。关键的一点则是应当完善《实施细则》中的规定,确定指导性案例的正式效力,即“不得单独作为裁判依据被援引”。 One of the important reasons why the case guidance system did not have a wide range of expected effects in the trial practice was the lack of specific provisions on how to invoke the guiding case in the judicial instruments. “<” On the guidance of the work case> Regulations “in the relevant content, which has been refined and improved, but there are still some shortcomings and deficiencies. In terms of launching procedures, the Regulations define two approaches: active reference and passive response to the prosecution’s argument that the former approach lacks an effective incentive mechanism and that the latter approach, though not universally valued, merits much advocacy. In determining the similarities between the pending case and the guiding case, the Regulations stipulate that both the basic case and the legal application should be compared. However, the application of the law is not appropriate as a criterion for determining the similarity. In the direct citing of objects, the Regulations confirm that a judge can only be cited as a referee for the point of the referee; in fact, other parts of the guidance case, and in particular the refereeing grounds, can quite well be invoked. Guiding cases should be promoted more frequently. We need to address the above issues and lower the threshold of citing so that more subjects can participate in more convenient ways. The key point should be to improve the provisions of the ”Regulations“ to determine the official effect of the guiding case, that is, ”shall not be invoked alone as a basis for refereeing."