公共地役权制度在我国不动产公私利益平衡中的适用

发布时间：2018-11-06 10:12

【摘要】：不动产作为《物权法》中的一种“物”,一方面对于个人而言它可以成为重要的私有财产,另一方面对于社会而言,它又是公共基础性资源。换言之,不动产自身同时包含了个人性和社会性,个人和社会公众对不动产都有其所追求的利益,前者为个人利益后者为公共利益。我国不动产管理制度较为特殊,不动产的所有权有时候会与不动产使用权相隔离,在我国土地管理制度下,私人可以作为房屋的所有者,但是对于土地的所有权私人则不能够享有,私人对于土地权利的享有只能是依靠法定程序获得土地使用权。那么同一不动产上的私权利就可能与代表公共利益的公权力产生冲突,如今持续发展的社会生产力使得社会公众对公共基础建设的需求与日俱增,于此同时人们对私权益保护意识也不断提升,在不动产领域内公私利益冲突加剧、矛盾凸显。基于多种因素,社会公众可能会对于私有不动产产生利益需求,那么在此私有不动产上就会出现个人利益与公共利益的冲突,在我国目前的法律制度框架下,所被认可的解决此矛盾的惯用方式,就是公权力主体通过征收制度,剥夺私人的不动产权利从而排除个人利益。然而,通过对不动产上利益结构进行分析会发现,不是所有情况下公共利益和个人利益都是对立排斥的,当个人对不动产所追求的利益和社会公众对不动产追求的利益处于不同层级而并不彼此影响时,此种情况多利益实现存在并存可能性,如果此时坚持剥夺个人财产权排除个人利益,必然是对私有不动产权人权利的过度牺牲,滥用征收权使得私有财产权利得不到充分保障,还为公权力扩张找到了更多借口。因此针对公私利益可以并存于同一不动产之上的情况,并不需要完全剥夺私有财产权利将个人权利排除在不动产之外,个人财产权利应当得到尊重和保护,这里可以在公权力主体和个人之间引入一种协商机制,允许不动产权利人参与到对不动产的利用中,要求不动产权利人让渡自己的一部分权利而非所有权给公权力主体享有,以便进一步实现行政公益目的。这种方式在法学理论上叫做“公共地役权制度”。这里文章试图以不动产上的价值利益结构为分析切入点,以公私利益能否并存为依据将公私利益冲突区分为排斥型公私利益冲突和并存型公私利益冲突,表明征收制度并非仅有可用也并非最佳的公私利益冲突解决途径,依据利益冲突存在的不同形态,针对可并存的公私利益冲突应兼顾公、私两方主体的利益,论证以公共地役权制度为解决之道的优势,并以具体的实例为样本论证公共地役权制度在我国适用的合理性。
[Abstract]:As a kind of "thing" in the Real right Law, on the one hand, it can become an important private property for the individual, on the other hand, it is a public basic resource for the society. In other words, the real estate itself contains both individual and social nature. Both individuals and the public have their own interests in real estate, while the former is personal interest and the latter is public interest. China's real estate management system is relatively special, the ownership of real estate is sometimes separated from the right to use real estate. Under the land management system, private individuals can be the owners of houses. However, private ownership of land can not be enjoyed, private ownership of land rights can only rely on legal procedures to obtain land use rights. Then the private right on the same real estate may conflict with the public power that represents the public interest. Nowadays, the sustained development of social productivity makes the public need for public infrastructure to grow day by day. At the same time, people's consciousness of protecting private rights and interests is also rising, and the conflicts between public and private interests in the field of real estate are becoming more and more serious. Based on a variety of factors, the public may have an interest demand for private real estate, then there will be a conflict between personal interests and public interests in this private real estate. Under the framework of our current legal system, The accepted way to solve this contradiction is that the public power subject deprives the private real estate right through the expropriation system to exclude the individual interests. However, by analyzing the structure of interest in real estate, we can find that not all cases of public interest and personal interest are opposite and exclusive. When the interests pursued by the individual and the public on the real estate are at different levels and do not affect each other, there is a possibility of coexistence of the realization of multiple interests in this situation. If we insist on depriving the individual property right to exclude the individual interests at this time, it is bound to be excessive sacrifice to the private immovable property right, the abuse of the expropriation right makes the private property right not fully protected, and it also finds more excuses for the expansion of public power. Therefore, where public and private interests can coexist over the same real estate, it is not necessary to completely deprive private property rights of excluding individual rights from real estate, and individual property rights should be respected and protected, Here we can introduce a consultation mechanism between the public power subject and the individual, allow the real estate owner to participate in the use of the real estate, and ask the real estate owner to transfer some of his rights instead of the ownership to the public power subject. In order to further achieve the purpose of administrative public welfare. This approach is theoretically called the "public easement system" in law. This paper attempts to divide the conflict of public and private interests into exclusive conflicts of public and private interests and coexisting conflicts of public and private interests on the basis of the structure of real estate value interests as the starting point and the coexistence of public and private interests as the basis. It shows that the expropriation system is not the only available and not the best way to resolve the conflict of public and private interests. According to the different forms of conflict of interest, the interests of the public and private parties should be taken into account in view of the coexistence of the conflicts of public and private interests. This paper demonstrates the advantage of taking the public easement system as the solution, and takes the concrete example as the sample to prove the rationality of the application of the public easement system in our country.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.2

【相似文献】