执行时效的体系地位及其规制方式——民法典编撰背景下执行时效制度的未来

发布时间：2019-03-30 13:11

【摘要】：在坚持实体性债权的程序性实现应受时间限制的前提下,只有尚不可执行债权和可执行债权均受到类似的限制,权利实现的时间限制才是完整的。我国民事实体法中诉讼时效的限制对象是尚不可执行的债权;我国民事诉讼法中执行时效限制的是可执行债权。执行时效的体系地位在于,其和诉讼时效一道,共同构成了债权实现的时间限制。相比我国法分别规定了程序性的诉讼时效和执行时效,德国法直接从实体角度规定尚不可执行债权和可执行债权的消灭时效,两者并没有核心差别,只存在观察视角的不同。当我国法律人完全接受了德国民法将债权实现的时间限制规定为实体性抗辩权的做法时,执行时效将和诉讼时效一道,共同面临着规制路径由程序向实体转化的机遇。
[Abstract]:Under the premise that the procedural realization of substantive creditor's right should be limited by time, only the unenforceable creditor's right and enforceable creditor's right are subject to similar restrictions, the time limit for the realization of the right is complete. The limitation object of the statute of limitations in the civil substantive law of our country is the unenforceable creditor's right, and the limitation of the execution of the limitation in our civil procedure law is the enforceable creditor's right. The system status of the limitation of execution is that together with the limitation of action, it constitutes the time limit of the realization of the creditor's right. Compared with the procedural limitation of action and the limitation of execution, German law directly prescribes the limitation of elimination of unenforceable claims and enforceable claims directly from the point of view of substance. There is no core difference between the two, but there is only a difference in the perspective of observation. When the legal person of our country completely accepts the practice that the time limit of the realization of the creditor's right is defined as the substantive defense right in German civil law, the execution prescription will face the opportunity of transforming the regulation path from procedure to entity together with the limitation of action.
【作者单位】：卢森堡马普程序法研究所;
【基金】：国家留学基金委“国家建设高水平大学公派研究生项目”(201206010006)
【分类号】：D923

【相似文献】