论行政法律行为对基本权利的事实损害——基于德国法的考察

发布时间：2018-07-11 10:23

本文选题：事实损害 + 行政法律行为　；参考：《环球法律评论》2014年03期

【摘要】：在德国,行政法律行为对公民基本权利间接引发的损害被称为"事实损害"。其中,行政法律行为间接给行政相对人带来的损害被称为后果效力的事实损害,而间接给第三人带来的损害则被称为附带效力的事实损害。与其他损害形式一样,宪法基本权利条款原则上也防御事实损害。但对事实损害的防御不得导致基本权利的防御范围漫无边际,需要对其进行限定。对于如何限定基本权利的防御范围,德国公法学界存在三种具有代表性的观点,分别为"归责限定说"、"主观要件说"和"规范目的说",其中"规范目的说"在宪法上最具合理性。事实损害与法律保留并非无法兼容,当法律仅授权采取某一措施而未提及后果时,需要探寻法律授权的目的,如果该项措施可能引发的事实损害后果不被授权目的所涵盖,则行政机关不得采取这一措施,否则违背法律保留原则。事实损害与其他形式的损害在法律后果上并无本质差别。
[Abstract]:In Germany, the damage caused by administrative law acts to the basic rights of citizens is called "factual damage". Among them, the damage caused by the administrative law act to the administrative counterpart is called the factual damage of the effect of the consequence, and the damage to the third party is called the factual damage of the incidental effect. Like other forms of damage, constitutional fundamental rights provisions protect against factual damage in principle. But the defense against the damage of fact must not lead to the boundless scope of defense of basic rights, and it needs to be limited. There are three representative views on how to limit the defense scope of fundamental rights in German public law circles. They are "imputation limitation theory", "subjective element theory" and "normative purpose theory", among which "normative purpose theory" is the most reasonable in constitution. Factual harm is not incompatible with a reservation of law, and when the law only authorizes the taking of a measure without reference to the consequences, the purpose of the legal authorization needs to be explored, if the consequences of the factual harm that may result from the measure are not covered by the authorized purpose, Then the administrative organ may not take this measure, otherwise violates the law reservation principle. There is no essential difference between factual damage and other forms of damage in terms of legal consequences.
【作者单位】：北京师范大学法学院;
【分类号】：D922.1;D951.6

【相似文献】