Normative references to reverse transaction systems in the German Civil Code – A systematic analysis

德国民法典中反向交易制度的规范性引用——系统分析

• 批准号: 439208187
• 负责人: Privatdozentin Dr. Anne Christin Wietfeld
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: Institut für Arbeit und sozialen Schutz (IAsS)
• 依托单位国家: 德国
• 项目类别: Publication Grants
• 财政年份: 2020
• 资助国家: 德国
• 起止时间: 2019-12-31 至 2020-12-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/439208187?language=en
• 关键词: Normative; references; reverse; transaction; systems

It is generally assumed that the references within the German Civil Code (BGB) do not follow any system. The common opinion says their scope can only be determined for each reference individually. The aim of my studies was yet to uncover a system of the BGB refer-ences and to show that at least the scope of constitutive references to areas of reverse transaction systems in the BGB is determined by consistent rules. In order to be able to analyse all of the BGB’s reference provisions relating to reverse transactions on the basis of a consistent method, the consideration of the individual norms is preceded by a fundamental methodological examination of the normative reference as a legal technique. The subsequent analysis of the individual references to the law of enrichment and the rules of rescission has revealed that the references to these sections of the BGB are actually based on a system. The references to the unjust enrichment are either declaratory references to the legal conditions or constitutive references to the legal consequences. The provisions that contain references to the legal consequences are to be classified as entitlements of unjust enrichment although they are regulated outside the title on unjust enrichment in the BGB, which is extraordinary. Due to the recurrent references to these sections, the enrichment law has a similar effect on the reference norms in question as a general part of a code of law normally has. The objections and defences under enrichment law (§§ 813, 814, 815, 817 S. 2, 821 BGB) are therefore applicable to these, although they are not covered by the references to the legal consequences to the law of enrichment, which only refer to §§ 818-820, 822 BGB. In the case of rescission, a distinction must be made between whether the constitutive reference refers to provisions justifying rescission or to the provisions on the consequences of rescission. The references to the consequences of rescission contain their own elements of a rule and basic legal consequences, similar to the references to the law of enrichment. For a more detailed definition of their legal consequence, they refer to §§ 346-348 BGB. Just like the rules on the legal con-sequences of unjust enrichment, the rules on the consequences of rescission establish a self-contained system of reversal. In case of a normative reference to these areas the com-plete system applies. Despite undeniable differences in the normative references to reverse transaction systems, which result from the different regulatory structure of the reference objects, the normative references to the legal consequences to these systems have the same function. They make use of the respective system of reversal which the reference objects specify. In this way, they create the legal consequence of the reference provisions. Therefore, the type of constitutive reference – as a reference to the legal conditions or to the legal consequence – can be determined by the reference objec

一般认为，《德国民法典》（BGB）中的参考文献不遵循任何制度。共同的意见是，它们的范围只能针对每个参考单独确定。我的研究的目的是揭示一个系统的BGB的约束力，并表明，至少在BGB的反向交易系统领域的构成参考的范围是由一致的规则。为了能够以一致的方法分析《德国联邦法典》中与反向交易有关的所有参考条款，在审议各项规范之前，先对作为一种法律的技术的参考规范进行基本的方法学审查。随后对个别提及的致富法和撤销规则的分析表明，提及《德国联邦法典》的这些条款实际上是基于一种制度。对不当得利的提及要么是对法律的条件的陈述性提及，要么是对法律的后果的构成性提及。包含提及法律的后果的条款将被归类为不当得利的权利，尽管它们在BGB中的不当得利标题之外进行了规定，这是非同寻常的。由于一再提及这些条款，资产增加法对有关的参考规范具有与法典一般部分通常具有的类似的效力。根据资产增值法提出的异议和抗辩（第813、814、815、817 S.因此，《英联邦法典》第2，821条）适用于这些情况，尽管这些情况并不包括在对资产增加法的法律的后果的提及中，而只是提及《英联邦法典》第818-820条，822条。在撤销的情况下，必须区分构成性的提法是指撤销的正当性条款还是指关于撤销后果的条款。提及撤销的后果时，包含其自身的规则要素和基本法律的后果，类似于提及资产增加法。关于其法律的后果的更详细的定义，参见《德国联邦法典》第346-348条。正如不当得利的法律的后果规则一样，撤销的后果规则也建立了一个自成一体的撤销制度。如果对这些领域进行规范性引用，则适用完整的系统。尽管对反向交易制度的规范性提及存在着不可否认的差异，这是由于所指对象的监管结构不同，但对这些制度的法律的后果的规范性提及具有相同的功能。它们利用参考对象指定的各自的反转系统。这样，它们就产生了参考条文的法律的后果。因此，构成性参照的类型--作为对法律的条件的参照或对法律的后果的参照--可以由参照对象来确定。