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

一般认为《德国民法典》(BGB)中的提法不遵循任何制度。普遍意见认为，它们的范围只能针对每个引用单独确定。我研究的目的是揭示BGB引用的系统，并表明至少BGB中对反向交易制度领域的构成引用的范围是由一致的规则确定的。为了能够以一致的方法分析BGB关于反向交易的所有参考条款，在审议个别规范之前，首先要对作为一种法律技术的规范参考进行基本的方法论审查。随后对个别提及浓缩法和撤销规则的分析表明，对《BGB》这些章节的提及实际上是基于一种制度。对不当得利的提及，要么是对法律条件的宣告性提及，要么是对法律后果的构成提及。包含法律后果的条款将被归类为不当得利的权利，尽管它们在《BGB》关于不当得利的标题之外进行了监管，这是非常不寻常的。由于经常提及这些条款，富集法对所涉参考规范的影响与法典的一般部分通常具有的效果相似。因此，浓缩法(第813、814、815、817、2、821节)规定的异议和抗辩适用于这些国家，尽管它们不在关于富集法的法律后果的提法中，只提及第818-820、822节。在撤销的情况下，必须区分构成要件是指有理由撤销的规定还是关于撤销后果的规定。对撤销后果的提及包含其自身的规则要素和基本法律后果，类似于对增益法的提及。有关其法律后果的更详细定义，请参阅第346-348条《英国国税法》。就像不当得利的法律顺序规则一样，关于撤销后果的规则建立了一个自成一体的撤销制度。在对这些领域进行规范参考的情况下，适用完整的制度。尽管不可否认，由于参照对象的监管结构不同，反向交易制度的规范参照存在差异，但规范参照对这些制度的法律后果具有相同的功能。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款的法律后果。因此，构成参照的类型--作为对法律条件或法律后果的参照--可由参照对象确定

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