【欧盟民法典草桉之述评】(中)
欧盟民法典草案之述评(上)
上网找律师就到中顾法律网快速专业解决您的法律问题欧盟民法典草案之述评(上)付俊伟华盛顿大学法学院访问学者目次一、前言二、欧盟民法典立法背景三、民法典起草之争(一)、构建民法典的必要性1、“单一市场”的构建2、“弱势群体”的保护3、统一与自然融合(二)、构建民法典的可行性1、法理基础2、法律文化多样性上网找律师就到中顾法律网快速专业解决您的法律问题(三)、民法典的构建1、重回罗马法2、法典还是判例法3、重述还是法典四、民法典草案之结构五、民法典草案之特色(一)、继承性1、PECL(欧盟合同法原则)2、Acquis Communautaire(现行私法)(二)、融合性1、两大法系的融合2、与国际规则、惯例的融合(三)、创新性1、形式的突破上网找律师就到中顾法律网快速专业解决您的法律问题2、内容的独特(四)、时代性1、现代私法2、多元价值观六、民法典草案之评述(一)、进步性1、“以人为本”理念的融入2、欧盟私法统一的基础(二)、不足1、不统一性2、局限性七、总结一、前言对大多数欧洲国家来讲，立法者制定的条文是法律的主要渊源，其在私法上的产物则表现为民法典的诞生。
[1] 十九世纪初《拿破上网找律师就到中顾法律网快速专业解决您的法律问题仑民法典》的制定拉开了欧洲民法法典化运动的序幕，其孕育的个人意思自治原则对后世民法的发展产生了深远的影响。
[2] 然而，《拿破仑民法典》更多地继受了罗马法的传统，大部分条文都来自于习惯法与古罗马法当中。
[3] 普遍接受的观点则认为在启蒙思想的洗礼下，《法国民法典》是罗马法后期意思主义原则与法国大革命政治影响的结晶。
[4]《拿破仑民法典》对十九世纪的欧洲产生了深远影响，为当时民法的发展奠定了坚实的基础。
颁布之后的民法典很快在比利时也得到了实行，于1810年传入荷兰。
[5] 其独特的风格至今还未丧失原有的光辉，仍然对法国人的生活发挥着重大的影响，以至于在普通法(Common Law)中挣扎的路易斯安那州(Louisiana)也抹不去法国民法典的烙印。
欧洲民法典草案及其对我国民法典制定的借鉴意义
欧洲民法典草案及其对我国民法典制定的借鉴意义
近年来，欧洲民法典草案引起了广泛关注，这份草案的发布被视为欧洲重大民事法律改革的里程碑。
作为一份综合性的民法典，该草案旨在为欧洲国家提供一个统一的民法框架，并推动欧洲内部市场的深化和一体化。
在这份草案中，包含了关于合同法、物权法、责任法、家庭法等领域的规定，涵盖了民事法律的各个方面。
同时，该草案还强调了个人权利和自由的保护，以及对消费者和弱势群体的保护。
对于我国而言，欧洲民法典草案对我国民法典制定具有借鉴意义。
首先，该草案体现了法律规范的科学性和系统性，这对于我国制定民法典时建立科学、完整、合理的法律规范体系具有借鉴意义。
其次，该草案注重了对个人权利和自由的保护，这与我国民法典强调保护个人合法权益的理念相符合。
此外，该草案还特别关注了消费者和弱势群体的保护，这也是我国民法制定需要考虑的一个问题。
最后，欧洲民法典草案的发布，标志着欧洲国家在民事法律领域的一次重大改革，这对于我国在未来推动民事法律的改革和完善，将有一定的借鉴意义。
综上所述，欧洲民法典草案对我国民法典制定具有重要的借鉴意义，我们需要认真研究其中的规定和理念，以此为我国民法典的制定提供参考和借鉴。
- 1 -。
欧盟宪法草案对欧盟人权保护机制的影响 (The Draft Constitution an演讲范文
欧盟宪法草案对欧盟人权保护机制的影响(The Draft Constitution an演讲范文欧盟宪法草案对欧盟人权保护机制的影响 (The Draft Constitution an演讲范文1 the general introduction of the draft constitution in ect of the human rights2 short review of the human rights protection in European Union3 the new points in ect of human rights in the draft constitution 3.1 mon values3.2 incorporation of the Charter of fundamental rights3.3 other changes could affect the human rights4 arisen questions4.1 the protection different from under the Convention4.2 the two courts system and its application 5 conclusions in a historical view 1 general introduction of the draft constitution in ect of the human rights “Conscious that Europe is a continent that has brought forth civilization; That its inhabitants, arriving in successive waves from earliest times, have gradually developed the values underlying humanism: equality of persons, freedom, respect for reason” Extract from the preamble to the draft Constitution In past 16 years, the European Union (EU hereafter) has marked itself through a series of changes. From The Single European Act, in which the Union mitted itself to create a single market and at the same time establish on its territory the freedom of movement of people, goods, services as well as capital, to Maastricht Treaty, which brought the Union into reality and led to mon foreign policy and cooperation in the area of justice and internal affairs as ahigher level cooperation among Member States. Then the following Amsterdam (1997) and Nice (20xx) Treaties, strengthened cooperation in foreign and security policy and placed Justice and Home Affairs matters and established the frame for the Union as a legitimate institution, in which people from different nations integrated in a large region would have mon historical direction and splendid future before them. Just before the door of enlargement of the Union, it was argued that the Union has to improve democracy and transparency as well as efficiency, in order to outlines the EU’s purpose and petence clearly and streamline structures so as to prevent paralysis, therefore a new constitution for the Union is determined to replace the EU's series of key treaties in passed over the last 50 years as a single document . Under leading of former French President and master draftsman Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the European Convention set about its work of drafting the European Union's first ever full-fledged constitution. With the convention's work pleted, the draft must now be finalized by an Intergovernmental Conference of European leaders that is expected to plete deliberations by the end of the 20xx. As far as our topic is concerned, noticeably modifications e out in the constitution contract, first of all, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we will discuss later. In the beginning it is meaningful to consider the statues of the draft constitution in the progress course of the Union. The Union desires to bring peace and prosperity, to promote economic and social progress through continuously integrating market and expanding freedom under light of united institution and socialsystems . These goals, however, are the foundation of development and protection of human rights . That means, if we regard human rights as a series right which realized at first in peaceful and law-ruling society, then the Union has already kept on entrenching to appreciate these goal from beginning on, and now by means of perusing such goal in a larger region through enlargement, the EU’s influence extent to broader area and more people. The draft constitution then in such context should be viewed as another historical phase in the process. Because the promoting of well-being and fortune of people depend not only on the development of economic situation and adding some single freedom clauses into the governmental documents, but also upon the entire politic system and background in which we live. Without governing based on democratic and effective institutional structure, and especially a ripe legislation and judiciary mechanism, the realization and protection of human rights could only be on the paper. This is also one of the motive caused the Declaration on the future of the European Union which mitted the Union to being more democratic, more transparent and effective, in order to pave the way for a Constitution in response to the expectations of the people of Europe . In this perspective, one shall recognize the Constitution as a moving forward step of the whole EU institutionalization targeting its goal, so that to discuss the Constitution in connection with the human right protection, it is helpful to review the human rights protection in Europe and, especially in EU. 2 short review of the human rights protection in European Union The protection of human rights has been internationally e to life in the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights in 1948 (UDHR) with reanization of disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind and respect for inherent dignity as well as the equal rights of all members of the human. This declaration states explicitly that the rights and freedoms of humans have to be guaranteed without distinction and destruction by any group, state or person. These principles were broadly accepted by European countries, considering the origin of the EU (EC) and the historical separation in Europe after WWII, we denote only the contracting countries of European Community. For the Member States of EC, the Council of Europe has been up to now the most important instrument, which established in 1949 as a result of the Congress of Europe in The Hague , and took for the basic of the human rights protection. The Council accepted the principles of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and integrated it into The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (the Convention hereafter), which and its 12 Protocols turned out to be the significant resource for Human Rights protection in Europe. Because of the existence of the Convention, the other two anizations established in the same age aftermath of the Second World War, i.e. OEEC and the European Communities didn’t include relevant clauses for Human Rights protection into their founding treaties. Since it was agreed at that time, the Council of Europe would focus on the protection of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democratic values, whereas the OECD and the European Communities were to be concerned with the economic restoration of Europe. The reason of separate anizations wasbased on a view to avoiding economic excuses for future inhumanity. Another reason came from the thought, which believed that the process of economic integration set forth in the Community Treaties could not lead to a violation of human rights. Furthermore, the original Member States in the Treaty of Rome feared, that the inclusion of a "bill of rights" in the Treaty might have brought about an undesirable expansion of Community powers, since it could lead Community institutions to interpret their powers as extending to anything not explicitly prohibited by the enumerated guarantees. Under the regime of Council of Europe, a lots of achievement of human rights improvement has been reached , yet along with the development and expansion of EU, another mechanism on protection of human rights which does not totally rely on the Council of Europe has derived out on one hand, on the other hand being lack of provisions ruling human rights protection in the Treaty establishing EC did not prevent the EC and the later European Union from providing care for the protection against the violations on human rights. Naturally, how could a swelling supranational anization as EC, which has been continually strengthening its power in all social ects, does not involve in human rights issues especially when the consciousness of human rights nowadays bee more significant both in international and national stages? Regarding to EU, The protection system has been formed in three ects. First of all, the legislation in the Member States of EU. Since there were no Member States of EU (EC) which accedes to the Community without being a member of the Council of Europe, and according to the Convention, it impose obligations on the Member States that theyshould ensure that the internal laws and practices ply with the human rights standards set out in the instruments. Very member states in EU have recognize the principles derived from the Convention and incorporated them somehow into national laws, most importantly, provided constitutive protection as the basic legal resource for human rights protection. For example in Germany, Basic Law (Grundgesetz) Art 1 to 19 deliver explicit provisions even beyond the Convention; the same case as Part VIII (§71-85) in Constitution of Denmark ; in Britain the Act of Human Rights came into force on 2 October 2000 steers extending a ways, in which the Convention can be used before domestic courts. Certainly, according to the classic human rights lessons, the basic protection of human rights could only be afforded at the national level through national legislation and excise of authoritative power. Secondly, the institutions and legislation at the EU level acts also with high respect to the human rights protection. The EU has showed its mitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms and has explicitly confirmed the EU's attachment to fundamental social rights ever since its establishment. The Amsterdam Treaty established procres intended to secure their protection. It was ascertained, as a general principle, that the European Union should respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, upon which the Union is founded. For the first time a procre is introduced, according to which severe and continuing violations of Fundamental Rights can lead to suspension of voting and other rights of a member state, if the Union determined the existence of a serious and persistent breach of these principles by that Member State. As to the Candidatecountries, they should also respect these principles to join the Union. Furthermore, It has also given the European Court of Justice the power to ensure respect of fundamental rights and freedoms by the European institutions. In accordance with the inner requirement for the implementation of development cooperation operations, in order to reach objective of developing and consolidating democracy, EU also need its rule respecting for human rights. Such cases we have are for instance the EU Council’s regulation on human rights, Council Regulation (EC) No 975 Likewise, at their meeting in Cologne in June 1999, EU leaders declared that in respect to the current stage of progress of the European Union, the fundamental rights applicable at Union level should be pushed forward, namely be consolidated in a Charter and thereby made more evident. They argued, that the legal resources of human rights protection e from not only the European Convention of Human Right, but also from various international conventions drawn up by the Council of Europe as well as the United Nations and the International Labor Organization, they also include EU treaties themselves and from the case law of the European Court of Justice. As a result, a Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter hereinafter) was sketch out, which highlighted the EU’s respect for human rights, for fundamental freedoms and for the principle of democracy through listing more rights a more precise definition of the mon values paring the early documents including the Convention. We will continue to concentrate on the Charter in point 3 since it has been integrated in the draft Constitution as an outstanding achievement. Finally, the opinion and case-law of EuropeanCourt of Justice (ECJ hereafter) also have immense impact on the establishment of the instrument of human rights protection within EU. Although the jurisprudence developed by the ECJ recognizes the Convention as the standard-setter in cases in which the Court has to consider and decide a human rights issue, since there were no relevant legislation existed in the frame of the Community, the ECJ furnish itself power in this ect by means of case-law. Earlier in 1974, the ECJ first made reference to the ECHR in the Nold judgment, in which the ECJ emphasized its mitment to fundamental human rights based on the constitutional traditions of the Member States’ fundamental rights form an integral part of the general principles of law which the Court enforces. In assuring the protection of such rights, the Court is required to base itself on the constitutional traditions mon to the Member States and therefore could not allow measures, which are inpatible with the fundamental rights recognized and guaranteed by the constitutions of such States. The ECJ declared, that the international treaties on the protection of human rights in which the Member States have cooperated or to which they have adhered could also supply indications which may be taken into account within the framework of Community law. That implied, even without clear regulations in the treaties, the remedy against violation on human rights could also be provided within the framework of the Community in respect for the mon traditions applied to the Member States, and in connection with we have mentioned about the Member States’ above, the principles and resource applied to the Member States derived from the Council of Europe. Thus a EU standard could be established by transforma rating parison of the members’ legal systems to the case-law in ECJ in respect for human rights. In this context, the ECHR serves as only an alternative source of knowledge, because based on the gradually increased legal resource- from the mon principles applied to the member states to the legislation of EU institutions and the case-law developed by the ECJ itself as well as the synthetically Charter of Fundamental Rights, the ECJ has been enabled to deliberate and judge cases relying on sufficient recourses existed in EU body in connection with human rights without referring to the ECHR. In a similar case, Cinéthèque, The Court made a move forward: It expressed the normative statement about respect for human rights as a condition for lawfulness as an institutional duty: it is the duty of this Court to ensure the observance of fundamental rights in the field of Community law, as stated by the Court. In this way, the Court of Union gradually enables itself to break in the field of excising more power in human rights protection. Based upon three ects above, it is reasonable to be aware of, that before the draft Constitution for Europe materialized, it already existed two de facto mechanisms supervising and providing legal protection for human rights in the scope of European Union. One of them is the Council of Europe based in Strasbourg, which provides basic standard of human rights via the Convention and other guideline mechanisms , and oversees its enforcement with the judiciary body: the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR hereafter). The other system, however, was gradually established during the progress of EU, which consists of two legislative bodies in Members States and Union levelrespectively, and the ECJ as the juridical instrument. The two systems, however, are not definitely distinguished with each other, but overlap and work in coordination. Because on the one hand, the fifteen European countries made mitment to respect the ECHR, and agreed to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of ECtHR in Strasbourg, in spite of that they have transferred some sovereign petence to Brussels. On the other hand, the ECtHR still plays a role as an effective co director of the ECHR legal regime, which maintain its unofficial partnership with the ECJ, whose own doctrine obliges it to honor the ECtHR whenever the Convention is relevant. Moreover, the EU is still lacking in ample legislation with respect to human rights. The main work of ECJ is to ensure that EU law is not interpreted and applied differently in Member State. However, the current circumstances might be changed according to the new Constitution for Europe.3 the draft Constitution with the incorporated Charter One of the most outstanding acplishments of the draft Constitution is incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. The Charter, in its three years’ life, has obtained appreciations from all around though it has not yet legal binding force. In order to analyze the effect of the Charter on the EU human rights system, we first examine at first the Charter itself, then based on the analyze of legal status of the Charter, we concentrate on the relationship of the Charter in the Constitution and ECHR as well as the possible two courts system could be occur. 3.1 the content of the CharterThe Charter was designed as a political and legal objective of EU while the EU has entered a more resolutely political phaseof integration. As the European Commission stated in its Communication of September 2000: “The Charter is a major milestone for Europe as a political force, which is evolving into an integrated area of freedom, security and justice, simply as a consequence of citizenship. It is an indispensable instrument of political and moral legitimacy, both for the citizens of Europe in relation to politicians, administrations and national powers and for economic and social operators.” Besides, it was considered that the list of rights contained in the Charter offers a more precise definition of the mon values that must be respected in a wider environmental entity by means of establishing a mon language on fundamental rights in EU. The Charter presents better practical protection for fundamental rights in the EU. Most of these rights are indicated in both the case law of the ECJ and Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. However, with the reference of the Charter, it is anticipated, the EU citizens need neither to consult the case law of the ECJ nor to read the articles of the plex treaties, in which the provisions refer to yet again other sources such as the ECHR and the constitutional traditions of Member States, in order to get a clear consciousness of their rights. Indeed, the articles in the Charter are grouped explicitly around six fundamental values: dignity, freedoms, equality, solidarity, citizenship and justice. While most of the rights listed are granted to everyone, some certain rights are granted to specific groups of people: i.e. children, workers Union citizens , Citizens of the Union and nationals of non-member countries residing in the Union As we have mentioned in point 2, the Charter could be regard as asyncretism by means of absorbing rights from broader recourses besides the ECHR. Thus the content of the Charter is broader than ECHR provides, while the ECHR is restricted only to civil and political rights. For example the Article II 8 in the Charter protection of personal data is derived from Article 286 EC Treaty; Directive 95 Paragraph 2 right to conscientious objection might be developed from national constitutional traditions ; more typical is Article II-18 right to asylum es from both the Article 63 EC Treaty and Protocols relating to the United Kingdom and Ireland annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam and to Denmark . The same cases we can cite in all places from the Charter, which reflects the nature loose relation between the Charter and the ECHR and other documents of Council of Europe. So according to the content of the Charter, it is sensible to summarize it as a self sufficient constitutional legal source providing adequate and plete protection for human rights. 3.2 the change of the legal characteristic of the Charter The Charter was supposed to function as a symbol that would “counterbalance the euro and bee part of the iconography of European integration and contribute both to the identity of and identification with Europe” when it was finally signed in the IGC in Nice. Since the Charter was not integrated into EU treaties, which led to non-binding force status. However, the Charter itself seems to have already paved a way to its incorporation into EU treaty as a constitutional “bill of rights”. Because it has created potential and provided a more solid basis for the mitment of the EU institutions to the protection of fundamental rights. This is the deficiency in EU Treaties, which should be plementedsooner or later . It is also unambiguous that the EU institutions, which have proclaimed the Charter, would mit themselves to respect the Charter. As a result, then on the one hand the Charter made EU citizens better to understand the extent of their rights to defend against violations on human rights. So that they should be capable of referring to the Charter when they challenge any decision against their deserved fundamental rights taken by EU institutions or by Member States implementing EU law. On the other hand, the EU Institution should act on the Charter whenever they drew policies and settle disputes according to petition. As a logic consequence, the ECJ as judiciary part should also regard the Charter as a binding inter-institutional agreement. It was yet exactly the reality. Short after the proclamation of the Charter, the European courts published new case law established referred to the Charter. Until early 20xx, the Advocates General of ECJ had referred to the Charter in 14 of the 23 cases they handled in relation to human rights .The Court of First Instance has also acted on the Charter. In a significant judgment of 3 May 20xx the Court even changed the rules governing individual access to the European courts, making reference to Article 47 of the Charter, which guarantees individuals whose rights are violated the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal. In any case it is obvious from above discuss, though the declaratory character of the Charter does not have legal binding as far as the legislative status of the Charter is concerned, it has already unchallengeable impact. So the incorporation of the Charter is only a question of time and method. Now as the Charter enshrined in the Constitution, it bee directly binding if thedraft Constitution e into force after ratified by member states.3.3 the difference from the Convention The Union had currently no petence to adhere to the ECHR, while this petence is explicitly provided for in the draft Constitution, which stipulates that the Union will endeavor to adhere to the ECHR . It was declared, that as for the incorporation of the Charter in the Constitution, adhesion to the ECHR does not mean any change to the Union's powers as defined in the Constitution. The full incorporation of the Charter and adhesion are plementary rather than alternative steps, because the Charter does not function in petition with the ECHR. In this context Article II 52 of the draft Constitution makes clear, that the Charter respects the Convention, its protocols, and the case law developed by the European Court of Human Rights. The rule seems simple: the rights and liberties shared by the Convention and the Charter have the same meaning in both texts, even if the wording of the Charter is different, either in an attempt to update the Conventions text written in 1950 or to create a shorter and more readily prehensible version. However, it is all what the Charter and the draft Constitution seek? Most importantly, what highlights in the Charter such as respect for the principle of democracy, for human rights and fundamental freedoms is not a new pledge, but they why the Charter reaffirms explicitly and makes them perfectly, then upgrade them to constitutive rights? According to my view, the adhesion to ECHR seeks the minimum security of human rights, however there is no reason to allege that the interpretation respecting the Convention must be accurate for the EU, especially along with the growth of the Council of Europe thatmany countries of East Europe attended including Russia. After all, the status of Council of Europe being more pan-European after a astonish increase of the members after collapse of the socialism block after 1990. The criteria of being a member of Council of Europe is distinct from those of join the EU. If the Council of Europe could reach mon understanding consistent with the human rights issues through its mechanism such as the mittee of ministers, and achieve the Convention’s aims as provide remedies suitable for all the members under ECHR, then, such situation may be not the case today. Since it is likely undue that one can claim fair and working condition easily in large eastern European area where the unemployment rate is high up to almost 15%; it is also impossible to enforce some new set-up democratic countries to bee conscious of the right of citizens to good administration as in the Charter states, on the contrary, too. So accordingly, the Charter avoids imposing limitations on rights that are unlimited in the Convention, as this would seriously lower the level of protection afforded by the Charter. Actually, as it states in the final report of working group of the draft Constitution: The second sentence of Article 52 § 3 of the Charter serves to clarify that this article does not prevent more extensive protection already achieved or which may subsequently be provided for (i) in Union legislation and (ii) in some articles of the Charter which, although based on the ECHR, go beyond the ECHR because Union law acquis had already reached a higher level of protection (e.g., Article 47 on effective judicial protection, or Article 50 on the right not to be punished twice for the same offence). Thus, the guaranteed rights in the Charter reflecthigher levels of protection in existing Union law. Then the Charter further includes a standstill clause: Article II 53. It sets out to preserve the level of protection already afforded by Union, national and international law, in their respective spheres of application, as well as Member States’ constitutions and international agreements. This clause also makes specific reference to the Convention, stresses that the Charter cannot undermine rights already guaranteed by that agreement. Clearly, that means it is the Convention which supplies the minimum protection as the lowest standard but the aim of the Charter of EU is to provide fundamental rights protection at a higher level than the Convention, which focus depend on the enlargement and the improvement of the democracy institutionalization of EU itself. In this context, as it states in the preamble of the Charter in the Constitution , the Union respects and interpreters the Charter in pliancy with the ECHR, could be only a scheme to recognize the current circumstance, while the principles of human rights protection derived from the Council of Europe have been general evolutes as constitutional traditions and international obligations mon to the Member States. 3.4 possible consequences: two courts system If the Constitution provides different protection of human rights for EU citizens, the question will left to the judicatory of EU: what a possible procre could be for Courts of EU to refer questions relating to the Convention if the Constitution e into force, in which the accession to the Convention was expressed clearly in Article I-7. Though the accession would ensure a uniform minimum level of protection across Europe irrespective of the legalactor, it would bring the conflict of jurisprudence between two Courts- ECJ and ECtHR. It was suggested that the ECtHR could give its advisory opinion for the ECJ to apply. However, sensitive issues took place, for example: whether judges from countries outside the Union would hear cases relating to EU law. Especially as we mentioned, it is suspectable whether with the rapid expansion of Council of Europe membership in the east, there will be possibility that the standards of protection applied by ECtHR could be weakened. And what could deal with the appeal according to the rights provided by the Charter but not fall in scope of ECHR? It is now hard to give satisfactory answers to these questions, however, one thing is sure, that the Courts of EU should acquire more petence in this part. Theoretically, the ECJ has played the same role as ECtHR in some cases. The ECtHR provides the ultimate remedy against relevant authority in case the applicant regards he is personally and directly the victim of a breach of one or more f these fundamental rights by one of the States when all domestic remedies has been exhausted. Alike, for several decades, the ECJ has also played an important role in ensuring the protection of fundamental rights inside the Union legal order, by developing a method for the review of performances of the Union institutions for human rights violations, despite lacking of sufficient relevant provisions in Treaties. Though the Court's fundamental rights jurisprudence was limited to guarantee that individuals are protected from violations of their fundamental rights resulting from acts of Union institutions, reviewing the case of individual against public institutions in member states was also。
欧洲民法典草案消费者撤回权制度
消费者撤回权制度的目的和功能
• 功能 • 保障消费者权益：消费者撤回权制度可以保护消费者在购买商品或服务后因冲动消费、信息误解等原因产
生的后悔，使其能够无损地撤回合同，避免承担不必要的经济损失。 • 促进电子商务发展：在电子商务和远程交易中，消费者往往缺乏与商家面对面的沟通机会，容易产生信息
不对称和消费纠纷。消费者撤回权制度可以增加消费者对电子商务的信任度，从而促进电子商务的健康发 展。 • 增强消费者对数字市场的信任：消费者撤回权制度的实施可以减少消费者对数字市场的疑虑，增强消费者 对数字市场的信任，有利于维护良好的市场秩序和公平竞争环境。
有益的参考和借鉴。
研究不足与展望
尽管本文对欧洲民法典草案中的消费者撤回权制 度进行了较为全面的梳理和分析，但仍存在一些 研究不足之处。
其次，本文对于消费者撤回权制度与其他国家和 地区的类似制度的比较研究还不够充分，需要进 一步拓展和深化。
首先，本文主要侧重于对消费者撤回权制度的法 律规定的解读和分析，而对其在实际操作中的具 体执行情况和存在问题缺乏深入的研究和探讨。
案例分析
例如，张三在一家网上商店购买了一件商品，但在收到商品后的7天内，他意识到自己并不需要它。由 于商店接受消费者撤回权，张三可以无理由地取消订单并获得全额退款。
面临的挑战和问题
要点一
挑战
对于商家来说，消费者撤回权可能增加了他们的工作量 ，特别是对于那些处理大量在线订单的企业。此外，某 些情况下可能难以确定消费者是否真的对他们的购买感 到后悔。
欧洲民法典草案消费者撤回 权制度
2023-11-06
目 录
• 引言 • 欧洲民法典草案消费者撤回权制度概述 • 欧洲民法典草案消费者撤回权制度的具体规定 • 欧洲民法典草案消费者撤回权制度的实践应用
浅议新一轮欧洲民法典之争
目录浅议新一轮欧洲民法典之争论权利瑕疵担保责任独立性之否认论在先权利与商标专用权冲突浅议新一轮欧洲民法典之争过去十几年里，欧洲法律学术界围绕着欧洲民法典的必要性与可行性的争论从未停止过。
支持派依旧在不厌其烦地历数着在欧盟成员国间一系列条约框架下数十年里所取得的法律进展，而反对派在质疑欧盟法缺乏外部全面性和内部连贯性的同时，亦毫无留情地着墨于欧盟各成员国内不同的法律和社会文化对欧盟法律一体化过程的反向牵拉效用。
连年的质疑之声和欧洲宪法与里斯本条约在欧盟内连续遭遇的困境并没有泯灭相当数量的法学家的欧洲民法典之梦，自2003年以来在欧洲私法尤其是合同法领域内，一些学术团体跳出目前欧盟法框架前瞻性地独创出一系列的法律标准参数(CFR)，如2008年初发布《法律标准参数草案——欧洲私法基本原则、定义和现代法》，这些学术成果已在欧洲法学界掀起了新一轮的欧洲民法典之争。
本文从历史上几次有名的欧洲民法典之争谈起，着重对自2003年以来的欧洲私法学术界在法律标准参数上取得的成果进行初步的价值衡量，以求为欧洲私法乃至欧洲民法典或部门法典的未来进行建设性的思考。
一、理智还是敌意?欧盟以及前身欧洲共同体的超国家性无疑是欧洲民法典之争的根源所在，当大批欧洲法学家对一部可能的欧洲民法典欢呼雀跃并急不可待地开始对民法典的性质、结构乃至内容进行论证的时候，来自欧洲内部与外部的质疑和批评之声也从未休止过，而其中最有名的当属加拿大法学家皮埃尔 罗格郎。
在皮埃尔于1997年发表在《现代法评论》的一篇文章里[1]，他指出欧洲各国法律并未真正走上相互融合之路，而所谓的欧洲民法典之说纯粹是无稽之谈，他的理论依据之一在于对法律移植说本身的全盘否定。
这不仅使人联想起二三十年前恰恰就是以皮埃尔为主角的围绕着法律移植轰动一时的那场辩论，以法律史学家艾伦 沃森为首的支持派认为历史上多如繁星般的实例已经证明了法律移植的无处不在，而皮埃尔则依托并发展了法国孟德斯鸠的相关学说并指出法律移植的不可能性，一部法律或一项法律制度在转移至另一法律文化后必然丧失本意。
欧洲民法典草案及其对我国民法典制定的借鉴意义
作者： 王金根
作者机构： 泉州师范学院陈守仁工商信息学院,福建泉州362000
出版物刊名： 西部法学评论
页码： 35-48页
年卷期： 2010年 第6期
主题词： 欧洲民法典草案 我国民法典制定 借鉴意义
摘要：欧盟经济一体化导致在私法领域需要实现交易规则的一体化。
为此，欧洲民法典研究所与欧盟现行私法研究所共同起草了一部“欧洲民法典草案（共同框架建议草案）”。
该草案无论是在结构上还是在具体内容上都颇有特色。
我国应从该法典民商合一的方法、大陆法系与英美法系融合的方法等多个方面借鉴其有益经验。
欧盟法与欧洲法院的人权保障和社会正义
REPORTING
目录
• 引言 • 欧盟法对人权保障的规定与实践 • 欧洲法院在人权保障中的作用与案例 • 欧盟法对社会正义的追求与实践 • 欧洲法院在社会正义中的作用与案例 • 欧盟法与欧洲法院面临的挑战与未来发展
PART 01
引言
REPORTING
欧盟法与欧洲法院概述
欧洲法院对社会正义的贡献与影响
1 2 3
统一解释和适用欧盟法
欧洲法院通过解释和适用欧盟法，确保其在各成 员国的统一实施，从而维护社会正义和公平。
推动社会政策的发展
欧洲法院的裁决不仅对具体案件具有约束力，而 且能够推动欧盟及其成员国社会政策的发展和完 善。
促进社会团结与融合
欧洲法院通过维护社会正义和公平，有助于促进 社会团结和融合，减少社会分裂和不稳定因素。
• 加强人权保障和社会正义的法律制度建设：未来，欧盟将进一步完善人权保障 和社会正义的法律制度，通过制定更加全面、具体的法律措施，确保成员国在 保障人权和实现社会正义方面取得更大进展。
• 推动成员国之间的合作与协调：欧盟将积极推动成员国之间在人权保障和社会 正义领域的合作与协调，通过分享经验、交流最佳实践等方式，促进成员国之 间的共同发展。
• 强化欧洲法院的司法监督职能：欧洲法院作为欧盟的最高司法机关，将在未来 进一步强化其司法监督职能，确保欧盟法得到统一、有效的实施，同时加大对 成员国违反人权保障和社会正义原则行为的惩处力度。
• 关注新兴领域的人权保障问题：随着科技的发展和社会进步，新兴领域如人工 智能、生物技术等对人权保障提出新的挑战。欧盟法和欧洲法院将密切关注这 些领域的发展，及时制定相应的法律措施和政策，确保人权在新兴领域得到充 分保障。
民法典草案的说明
民法典草案的说明
民法典草案是中华人民共和国法律总则和个人权益保护的重要法律文件。
它的
主要目的是规范和保护公民的财产、人格等各种个人权益，维护社会公平正义，促进社会主义市场经济的发展。
草案中包含了关于人格权、财产权、合同权、婚姻家庭权益等多个方面的规定。
其中，对于人格权的保护，草案明确了公民的姓名、肖像权、名称权、名誉权、荣誉权等个人权益受法律保护，禁止侵犯。
而在财产权方面，草案规定了私人财产的自由支配权和保护，鼓励公民依法取得、使用、处置财产。
草案还特别关注了合同权的保护，明确了合同自由原则和对合同的诚实信用原则，并提供了救济措施以维护交易双方的合法权益。
对于婚姻家庭权益，草案规范了婚姻的建立、维护和解除程序，旨在推动家庭和睦、维护妇女儿童的合法权益。
此外，草案还强调了民事责任的界定和追究，对违反法律规定导致他人损失的
行为进行赔偿责任的明确。
同时，草案还涉及了继承、侵权责任、权利保护等方面的规定，以全面保护公民的各种权益。
最终，民法典草案将对社会经济发展、法治建设和公民权益保护起到积极的推
动作用。
通过对个人权益的明确规范，将带来更加稳定、公正、有序的社会发展环境，促进我国现代化建设和社会进步。
欧洲民法典草案消费者撤回权制度研究
欧洲民法典草案消费者撤回权制度研究引言消费者撤回权是指消费者在购买商品或服务后，有权在一定的时间内取消购买行为，并要求退还已支付的款项。
这一制度旨在保护消费者免受不良商品或服务的损害，并提供给消费者更多自主选择的机会。
在欧洲，消费者撤回权已成为一项重要的法律保障措施。
本文将对欧洲民法典草案中的消费者撤回权制度进行研究和探讨。
欧洲民法典草案与消费者撤回权欧洲民法典草案是欧洲正在筹备中的一项重要法律草案，旨在统一欧洲各国的民法制度。
消费者撤回权制度是该草案中的一项重要内容之一。
草案规定了消费者在购买商品或服务后撤回权的具体要求和程序，以保护消费者的合法权益。
该草案明确规定了消费者在购买商品或服务后的撤回权时间，通常为14天以内。
在这个时间范围内，消费者可以自由地行使其撤回权，无需提供任何理由。
一旦消费者决定行使撤回权，他们有责任将商品退还给卖方，并要求退款。
卖方则有义务在收到退还的商品后及时返还已支付款项。
此外，草案还规定了消费者在行使撤回权时所需承担的费用。
一般情况下，消费者需要承担退还商品时的运输费用以及可能产生的其他费用，如增值税等。
但如果卖方在销售过程中未能提供正确的信息或虚假宣传，导致消费者做出错误决策，消费者则可以免费行使撤回权。
欧洲消费者撤回权制度的意义欧洲消费者撤回权制度的实施对消费者和商家双方都意义重大。
首先，对消费者而言，撤回权制度增加了他们对商品和服务的选择自主性。
消费者可以在购买后一段时间内进行思考和比较，决定是否满意并继续购买。
这种自主选择的权利可以减少消费者的购买风险，降低了不良商品和服务对消费者的影响。
其次，撤回权制度对商家而言也有积极意义。
一方面，此制度迫使商家提供高质量的产品和服务，以满足消费者的需求。
商家需要认真对待消费者的撤回请求，并积极改进自身的产品和服务。
另一方面，撤回权制度对商家经营行为起到了规范的作用，促进了公平竞争和市场稳定。
欧洲民法典草案消费者撤回权制度的改进空间尽管欧洲消费者撤回权制度已取得一定成效，但在实践中仍然存在一些问题和改进空间。
欧洲示范民法典草案消费者撤回权制度对我国的借鉴意义
第12卷第4期2016年10月沈阳工程学院学报（社会科学版）Journal of Shenyang Institute of Engineering （Social Sciences ）Vol.12No.4Oct．2016收稿日期：2016－05－28作者简介：邵妍（1990－），女，江苏徐州人，硕士研究生。
DOI ：10．13888/j．cnki．jsie （ss ）．2016．04．008欧洲示范民法典草案消费者撤回权制度对我国的借鉴意义邵妍1，廖策2（1.南京财经大学法学院，江苏南京210046；2.沈阳市皇姑区委党校教育室，辽宁沈阳110036）摘要：我国新修改的《消费者权益保护法》首次引进了消费者撤回权制度，引发了社会各界的广泛关注与讨论。
与《欧洲示范民法典草案》相比，不难看出，在适用范围、期间、消费者经营者的权利义务、法律后果等具体制度方面，我国的消费者撤回权制度有许多局限性。
《欧洲示范民法典草案》规定了较为详备的消费者撤回权制度，对我国相关制度的完善具有重要的借鉴意义。
关键词：欧洲示范民法典草案；消费者撤回权；消费者保护中图分类号：D90文献标识码：A文章编号：1672－9617（2016）04－0472－08随着商品经济和信息技术的飞速发展，销售的方式也日新月异，远程销售、网络销售、上门销售等新兴的销售方式在给消费者提供便利的同时也带来了新的问题。
消费者在签订合同时，往往处于劣势及信息不对称的地位，很难对商品的信息形成完整、准确的理解。
这就导致在市场交易的环境下，由于信息的不对称性和不确定性，风险存在的可能性更大大增加了。
［1］335为了解决这一问题，各国规定了消费者撤回权，我国也于2013年10月25日通过了《中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法》（以下简称《消费者权益保护法》）修正案，在网络、电视、电话、邮购等交易领域引入消费者撤回权，并对权利的适用范围、行使方式、撤回期间、撤回效力等各项要件作出了规定。
欧盟版权指令述评-江苏知识产权公共服务平台
欧盟“版权指令”述评作者：李明德来源：《环球法律评论》2002年第4期1996年12月，世界知识产权组织主持的外交会议缔结了《世界知识产权组织版权条约》（WCT）和《世界知识产权组织表演和录音制品条约》（WPPT）。
随后，欧共体即开始制定实施上述两个条约的指令。
1997年12月10日，欧盟委员会（也即欧共体委员会）向欧盟议会和欧盟理事会提出了《关于协调信息社会中版权与相关权某些方面的指令建议》，简称“版权指令草案”。
〔1〕其中的“信息社会”，在欧盟的相关词汇中就是指国际互联网。
〔2〕因此，这是一个有关网络环境中版权与相关权保护的指令草案。
欧盟议会在详细审议了“版权指令草案”后，提出了一系列修改意见。
在此基础之上，欧盟委员会于1999年5月21日提出了一个修改稿版权指令草案。
〔3〕此后，欧盟理事会（也即欧盟部长理事会）又于2000年9月25日通过了一个关于“版权指令”的共同意见。
〔4〕2001年4月9日，欧盟议会在对“共同意见”进行了某些修改之后，终于通过了《欧盟议会和理事会关于协调信息社会中版权和相关权某些方面的指令》。
2001年5月21日，“版权指令”的最后文本形成，并于2001年6月22日公布于《欧共体公报》上。
〔5〕按照“版权指令”的有关规定，指令自公布之日起生效，成员国则必须在2002年12月22日以前在国内法中贯彻实施指令，并将有关情况通报欧盟委员会。
与以往的各项指令相似，“版权指令”在结构上也由“陈述”和“指令”两部分构成。
“陈述”部分主要说明制定“版权指令”的立法依据、立法过程和立法目的，以及“指令”部分条文的基本含义等。
“指令”部分则是具体的法律条文。
虽然“指令”部分的法律条文更为重要，但“陈述”部分也具有同等的法律效力。
在解释有关的法律条文时，可以参照与之相对应的“陈述”。
本文主要讨论欧盟“版权指令”中与互联网络有关的一些重大问题，如复制权，向公众传播权和向公众提供权，权利的限制与例外，对技术措施的保护，对权利管理信息的保护，等等。
欧洲示范民法典草案
欧洲示范民法典草案
欧洲示范民法典草案是由欧洲委员会在1996年发起的欧洲示范民法典项目（European Civil Code）。
它旨在制定一部普遍适用于欧洲各国的民法典，以最大限度地减少民法方面的差异，促进欧洲经济和法律体系的整体协调和发展。
欧洲示范民法典草案的目标是统一欧洲的民法，它包括以下重要内容：
1、解决物权、人身权利、婚姻法律关系等各种民事问题;
2、定义各项民事行为的基本原则，如责任、信托、契约、担保、债务以及合同的效力等;
3、提供对民法典中关键概念、概念的界定，并结合成立和终止合同的条件;
4、处理各类民事关系中可能出现的纠纷，如损害赔偿、产权诉讼、离婚等;
5、规定财产继承的规则，以及隐形财产的处理方式，如林权、排水权等;
6、确定相互间的民事行为的基本原则，如效力、注册登记、担保、抵押等;
7、规定不同民事关系中的履行义务的程序，及因违反民事义务而必须承担的民事责任;
8、建立民事诉讼制度，如诉讼时效、司法管辖、程序合规等;
9、明确民事行为人的法律地位，包括家庭成员、儿童、被抚养人、配偶、被精神鉴定者等;
10、规定婚姻关系中各方的权利和义务，以及婚姻终止后的财产分割程序，以及夫妻财产的担保权。
欧洲示范民法典草案的设计和编写工作已经进行了20多年，它反映了一种欧洲民法思想，统一了欧洲民法的基本原则，以及解决了欧洲民法的一些关键问题。
它既是欧洲各国民法法律体系的基石，也是欧洲民法典的标志性成果。
欧盟民法典草案之述评(中)
欧盟民法典草案之述评（中）（三）民法典的构建在对欧盟民法典建立的必要性和可行性讨论过程中，“市场和效率”成为欧盟推动民法典构建的主要动力，近年来欧盟对私法统一所采取的措施和行动表明民法典的构建已是大势所趋。
然而，如何构建这部民法典则成为讨论的议题。
1、重回罗马法以赖因哈德・齐默尔曼（Reinhard Zimmermann）为代表的历史法学家提出了欧盟民法典应当以古罗马法为基础，重新回到中世纪的“共同法”（ius commune）之上。
[1] 历史法学家们发掘，欧洲各国在18世纪以前都享有着一部共同的法律，而现在欧盟各国法律的多样性是从十八世纪以后才开始逐渐区分的。
[2] 在这之前，欧洲各国共享着一部共同的法律，这部法律来源于古罗马法。
自从十一世纪学说汇纂（Digest）从博洛尼亚（Bologna）发掘出以后，欧洲兴起了前所未有的古罗马法研究热潮。
在那段时期，欧洲各国的专家学者纷纷前往博洛尼亚学习法律。
随着亚里士多德《形而上学》和《伦理学》的翻译出版，以及阿奎纳将神学与哲学巧妙结合的阐述后，罗马法的研究逐渐走向理论化。
[3] 历史法学家通常认为罗马法学家只注重法律条文的完善，而不懂得从这些法律条文中寻找出法律的一般规则。
这也使得古罗马法学只具有一套成熟的规则，而缺乏理论的研究。
在文艺复兴精神的引导下，中世纪的法学家更懂得将古罗马法规则与古希腊思想相结合。
[4] 他们认为，古罗马法所有的规则都来源于古希腊哲学思想。
例如，罗马合同法来自于亚里士多德对“交换正义”的划分，而侵权法则来自于对“矫正正义”的阐述。
不仅如此，他们还认为古希腊哲学思想甚至影响到了整个罗马法的发展与构建。
[5] 在这种思想的影响下，中世纪的法学家试图构建出一套非常完美而系统的法学理论。
这套法学理论影响了整个欧洲国家法律的发展，欧洲各国也就是由这套精心建筑起来的法学理论统治着。
因此，历史法学家们认为我们现在所讲的私法统一，并非是将现行私法“欧洲化”（Europeanisation），而是应当重新回到中世纪的“共同法”的时代。
从《欧盟宪法条约草案》看欧盟的性质
从《欧盟宪法条约草案》看欧盟的性质
褚童
【期刊名称】《兰州交通大学学报》
【年(卷),期】2006(025)002
【摘要】作为一个特殊的国际组织,欧洲联盟的性质问题一直被广泛讨论.随着欧盟一体化程度的不断加深以及欧盟宪法条约草案的出台,欧盟究竟是一个什么样的组织就更值得研究了.文章通过对欧盟宪法条约草案内容的分析,认为欧洲联盟是一个联邦与邦联的混合体,但更倾向于向联邦发展.
【总页数】4页(P67-70)
【作者】褚童
【作者单位】武汉大学,法学院,湖北,武汉,430072
【正文语种】中文
【中图分类】D993.9
【相关文献】
1.从《欧盟宪法条约》看欧盟的危机与前景 [J], 程秀丽
2.《欧盟宪法条约》:欧盟一体化的新起点和新问题 [J], 和军;陈静波
3.《欧盟宪法条约》框架下的欧盟机构改革 [J], 施鹏鹏
4.从宪法性条约到条约性宪法--欧盟宪法的进步与局限 [J], 李济时
5.从欧盟宪法条约看欧盟军事化的进展与限度 [J], 郭干
因版权原因，仅展示原文概要，查看原文内容请购买。
欧盟法
一、欧盟法的特质（一）欧盟法形成背景1、欧盟法是欧洲统一运动的产物。
在欧洲，由于历史的原因，欧洲统一思想由来已久，并且有广泛的社会基础。
两次世界大战及战后欧洲和世界局势的巨大变化，终于促使这种统一思想付诸实施。
（长期以来,欧洲各国的历史无不打上了为争夺统治权和势力范围进行斗争的烙印,而欧洲各国在文化、经济和以基督教为核心的价值观方面所存在的共性却长期被忽视。
而两次世界大战在给欧洲各国人民带来巨大灾难的同时,也促使他们进行思考,使他们逐步确立了这样的信念:人类已不再容许以暴力作为解决国家之间所存在的问题的手段,需要各国之间更多的协作、协商,谈判应当作为处理国际关系的基本手段。
同时,欧洲各国深感欧洲分裂为众多的民族国家乃是爆发战争的根源。
战争削弱了欧洲在国际上的地位,欧洲各国必须联合起来,通过欧洲的统一谋求生存与发展。
在这样的信念的驱动下,促成了泛欧运动的发起）。
过程：1950年,法国外长罗伯特·舒曼提出的《舒曼宣言》，宣布法德实行煤钢联营，将煤炭和钢铁业置于共同的“高级机关”控制之下，且此联营向其它欧洲国家开放时，欧洲统一运动的最初设计已为欧盟法注入不同于传统国际法的新因素。
根据这一计划,1951 年4 月18 日,以法国、德国为核心,联合意大利、比利时、荷兰、卢森堡四国缔结了《欧洲煤钢共同体条约》(又称巴黎条约)，条约规定六国将本国煤钢工业的管理权让渡给高级机关。
高级机关由各成员国政府共同任命的、地位独立的个人组成。
1957 年德、意、比、荷、卢六国在罗马订立了《欧洲经济共同体条约》和《欧洲原子能共同体条约》(以上两条约并称《罗马条约》。
以巴黎条约和罗马条约为基础的欧共体法形成了。
1986 年2签署的《统一欧洲文件》(又称单一欧洲文件) ,为欧洲联盟的建立打下了法律基础经过努力,1992年2 月7 日,欧洲共同体原先的六个成员国法、德、意、比、荷、卢,加上1973 年加入的英国、丹麦、爱尔兰、1981 年加入的希腊,以及1986 年加入的葡萄牙、西班牙共12 个国家在荷兰的马斯特里赫特(Maast richt) 共同签署了《欧洲联盟条约》(以下简称《马约》。
欧洲民法典草案消费者撤回权制度研究
加强消费者教育和宣传，提高消费者的法律意识和自我保护能力。
借鉴其他国家和地区消费者撤回权制度的经验和做法，不断完善和优化消费者撤回权制度。
THANKS
谢谢您的观看
如果经营者事先告知消费者撤回期限少于14天，则以经营者告知的期限为准。
特殊情况
撤回权的行使期限
通知经营者
消费者行使撤回权时，应当通知经营者，通知的方式可以是书面、口头或其他形式的电子通信。
提供必要信息
消费者在通知经营者行使撤回权时，应提供必要的信息，如订单号、合同编号等。
撤回权的行使方式
合同无效
05
结论与展望
消费者撤回权制度提高了消费者的权益保护水平，使消费者在购买商品或服务后有更长时间的反悔机会。
欧洲民法典草案中的消费者撤回权制度具有可操作性，为消费者提供了便利和有效的法律保障。
消费者撤回权制度的实施有助于促进电子商务和在线销售等行业的健康发展，推动经济繁荣。
研究结论
研究展望
进一步完善消费者撤回权制度的细节和实施细则，提高制度的可操作性和可执行性。
xx年xx月xx日
欧洲民法典草案消费者撤回权制度研究
CATALOGUE
目录
消费者撤回权制度概述欧洲民法典草案消费者撤回权制度的主要内容欧洲民法典草案消费者撤回权制度的实施与影响欧洲民法典草案消费者撤回权制度的比较与借鉴结论与展望
01
消费者撤回权制度概述
消费者撤回权是指消费者在一定期限内无理由地撤回其订立的合同，且不承担任何违约责任的权利。
英国消费者撤回权制度
美国联邦贸易委员会和各州法律都规定了消费者撤回权制度，主要适用于远程销售和上门推销。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
《道路交通安全法》专题研究
虚拟财产研究专题
民法法典化专题研究
民法商法化专题研究
中国人民大学第二届法学博士后论坛公告[12月29日]
您现在的位置：>>>首页>>>民事法学>>>学者论坛 热点文章
曹险峰 工伤保险与侵权损害赔偿责任适用关系问题研究 (2009-12-23)
张新宝 精神损害赔偿制度的完善 (2009-12-22)
| 英文频道
法律学人理论法学民事法学商事法学程序法学判解研究检索中心动态报道法学教室法学茶座法律书屋法学讲堂
《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》通过研讨会[12月29日] 《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》正式颁布
值得一提的是，当今两大法系间的融合不断加深。判例法国家已经认识到法典具有稳定性的优越性，也逐步借鉴大陆法系国家的经验而进行一系列的改革，美国的《统一商法典》就是一个典型，而英国现在也正在考虑《统一商法典》的制定。与此同时，大陆法系国家也认识到判例法所带来的“相同案情，相同判决”的公平、安定及灵活性特点。以荷兰为例，荷兰民法典于1838年颁布，继承了《法国民法典》的精神，其主要规则直接来源于《拿破仑法典》。1992年荷兰民法典得到重新修订，共分为八编，第一编为人法与家庭法，第二篇为法人法，第三编规定了财产法总则，第四编继承法，第五编物权法，第六编债法总则，第七编规定了有名合同，第八编运输法。目前最后两编“知识产权法”与“国际私法”仍在起草中。虽然荷兰是法典化国家，但在现实生活中，如果下级法院在相类似的案件中做出与最高法院发布的案例截然相反判决，当事人有权以最高法院的判决为依据请求对原判决进行复审。[11]
他们认为，自十八世纪起，欧洲的这套共同法逐渐开始民族化，这就造成了当今各成员国私法的多样性。但其根本法律基础都是由这套中世纪的“共同法”发展而来，如果重新回到这部法律中，那么法律文化基础多样性的差异也随之可以获得解决。历史法学家提倡的“重回罗马法”时代，在法学界引起大部分倡导构建民法典学者的共鸣。值得一提的是，在欧盟私法统一过程中，各法学流派根据自己的宗旨和目的组建了法律研究的团队，推动了欧盟私法的快速发展和融合。而历史法学流派组建的团体直接称为“共同法研究院”(Ius
历史法学家通常认为罗马法学家只注重法律条文的完善，而不懂得从这些法律条文中寻找出法律的一般规则。这也使得古罗马法学只具有一套成熟的规则，而缺乏理论的研究。在文艺复兴精神的引导下，中世纪的法学家更懂得将古罗马法规则与古希腊思想相结合。[4]
他们认为，古罗马法所有的规则都来源于古希腊哲学思想。例如，罗马合同法来自于亚里士多德对“交换正义”的划分，而侵权法则来自于对“矫正正义”的阐述。不仅如此，他们还认为古希腊哲学思想甚至影响到了整个罗马法的发展与构建。[5]
Commune Research School)[7]，将从部分罗马法条款到现代法律规则的演变淋漓尽致地展现了出来。
历史法学家提出的欧盟民法典的构建应当重新回到中世纪共同法的观点，也引起学界的一些反驳。有学者指出，中世纪“共同法”是建立于《学说汇篡》基础之上的。《学说汇篡》虽来源于公元六世纪的优帝法典，但该汇篡只是对以前法学家片断文字的综合，并不是法条或者教科书的汇集。在汇篡中，时常出现观点和理论的相互矛盾、对立和不系统的现象。因此，反驳者认为汇篡价值只能是学习和继承罗马法的研究方法，并非可以直接用于当今欧盟统一私法的构建。同时，古罗马时代法律的调整对象与当今欧盟需要的私法相差甚远，古罗马法反映的是一种初级商业经济发展的需要，而现在我们寻求的私法统一则需要满足当今复杂化经济发展的要求。因此，他们认为重回古罗马罗马法
以赖因哈德·齐默尔曼（Reinhard
Zimmermann）为代表的历史法学家提出了欧盟民法典应当以古罗马法为基础，重新回到中世纪的“共同法”（ius
2、 法典法还是判例法
在欧盟民法典构建过程中，私法统一的形式也成为争论焦点。由于法典具有不灵活性，同时欧盟对法典的颁布也缺乏法理基础的支持。因此，有学者建议应该像普通法系国家那样采取判例法的形式。可以对欧盟法院的判决赋予一定效力，利用先前判例对以后判例具有约束力这一原则，使欧盟私法的统一以判例法呈现出来。[8]
马特 照猫画虎还是画蛇添足 (2009-12-22)
刘春田 网络环境下的法律误区 (2009-12-25)
王竹 缺陷产品不真正连带责任制度的确立与完善 (2009-12-23)
然而，历史法学家的提倡虽然没有全被采纳，但是其对古罗马法的研究客观上促使了欧盟私法的统一进程。如“共同法研究院”系列丛书中的《诚实信用》（Good
Faith）一书，使欧盟合同法对这一大陆法系国家奉为“民法帝王规则”的理解更加深刻，同时也使这一模糊概念逐渐清晰。
自从十一世纪学说汇纂（Digest）从博洛尼亚（Bologna）发掘出以后，欧洲兴起了前所未有的古罗马法研究热潮。在那段时期，欧洲各国的专家学者纷纷前往博洛尼亚学习法律。随着亚里士多德《形而上学》和《伦理学》的翻译出版，以及阿奎纳将神学与哲学巧妙结合的阐述后，罗马法的研究逐渐走向理论化。[3]
高圣平 土地管理法修改专题之二：建设用地使用权设立规则研究 (2009-12-24)
胡安潮 对侵权法归责原则的思考 (2009-12-26)
刘士国 论医疗损害责任立法规定之问题与完善 (2009-12-25)
commune）之上。[1]
历史法学家们发掘，欧洲各国在18世纪以前都享有着一部共同的法律，而现在欧盟各国法律的多样性是从十八世纪以后才开始逐渐区分的。[2]
在这之前，欧洲各国共享着一部共同的法律，这部法律来源于古罗马法。
欧盟民法典草案之述评（中）_民事法学_中国民商法律网中国人民大学民商事法律科学研究中心 | 民法学研究会 |
中国人民大学法学院 | 佟柔民商法发展基金 | 明德民商法研习社
民法精品课程 | 《国联民商法网刊》 | 商法研究所 | 网站地图 | 征稿 | 法律网站导航 | 《判解研究》 | BBS
“重述”（restatement）一词来源于《美国法律重述》（American Law
Restatement），其主要特点是将现行多样性法律的普通规则表现出来。而“法典”（codification）主要用于大陆法系国家，主要特点是具有强制执行力的统一规则的汇集。[12]
这种规定无疑在采用法典制的同时，也吸收了判例法的公平、安定和灵活性的特点。但欧盟在采用法典化的同时，是否也会赋予欧盟法院判决对其成员国法院具有约束力的效力，欧盟法院是否能对民法典作出具有“先例”效力的解释，还有待于讨论。
3、 重述还是法典
而普通法系灵活性这一优越特点也能使欧盟私法的统一不至于太僵化，同时也可以解决欧盟缺乏权力颁部法典这一问题。然而，这一提议受到多数学者的反对，他们认为判例法国家的法律虽然具有灵活性，但是其法律并不系统，这也就是为什么美国现在要起草《法律重述》的重要原因。[9]
判例法虽然能够及时应对社会发展中出现的新情况，但是不具有稳定性，同时判例法的发展也需要相当长的时间才能累积出一套体系。而当前欧盟“单一市场”经济的发展迫切需要一部系统、健全的法典，以解决多样性私法所造成的阻碍。[10]
“物权法实施研究论坛”
民法学与环境资源法学的对话
关注《侵权责任法（草案）》
《劳动合同法》相关问题专题
更多专题>>
字体大小：大 中 小
（三）民法典的构建
在对欧盟民法典建立的必要性和可行性讨论过程中，“市场和效率”成为欧盟推动民法典构建的主要动力，近年来欧盟对私法统一所采取的措施和行动表明民法典的构建已是大势所趋。然而，如何构建这部民法典则成为讨论的议题。
而在欧盟民法典的构建过程中，有学者提出应当像美国一样通过“重述”的形式将私法规则表现出来。[13]
其目的主要有两点：第一是所有的规则来源于现行各国成员法律当中，起草小组只是从这些规则中找出最普遍适用的规则。这与《美国法律重述》一致，其主要目的也是从各州多样性的法律当中找出最合适的规则。这种方式不至于使起草小组重新创造出条款或规则，以至于将外来规则或概念强加于欧盟私法的融合之中；第二点是《美国法律重述》没有强制约束的效力，也是由非官方的专家、学者等组成的民间机构进行起草。而欧盟民法典起草小组也是如此，其成员并非由官方指派。同时，起草后的民法典应当也不具备强制约束力，而只供私法主体与法官参照。因此，有学者建议欧盟民法典应当采用“重述”的形式。[14]
欧盟民法典草案之述评（中）
付俊伟 华盛顿大学法学院访问学者
上传时间:2009-12-28
浏览次数:109
刘宗胜 论连带责任中求偿权的实现 (2009-12-26)
张民安 替代责任的比较研究 (2009-12-24)
专题
用益物权研究专题
在这种思想的影响下，中世纪的法学家试图构建出一套非常完美而系统的法学理论。这套法学理论影响了整个欧洲国家法律的发展，欧洲各国也就是由这套精心建筑起来的法学理论统治着。
因此，历史法学家们认为我们现在所讲的私法统一，并非是将现行私法“欧洲化”（Europeanisation），而是应当重新回到中世纪的“共同法”的时代。[6]