摘要
宪法基本权利确立了一套客观价值秩序,既适用于国家与人民,也拘束私法关系,是法律行为效力的判断标准之一。由于宪法时下还不能作为判断法律行为无效的直接依据,应当将侵害基本权利的法律行为无效事由认定为违背公序良俗。违反法律与违背公序良俗都是法律行为无效的判断事由,基本权利透过公序良俗即可单独否定法律行为效力。最高法院1988年"工伤概不负责"案的《批复》将基本权利既视为法律又视为公序良俗,以此否定法律行为效力,在方法上欠为妥当,应予检讨。
As one of the criteria to judge the effectiveness of juristic acts,the fundamental rights of the Constitution establishes a set of objective value orders of the whole society,which are not only applicable to the states and people,but also to constrain private law relationships.Constitution is not the law which makes juristic acts invalid due to their violation of law.However,we should regard those juristic acts which go against the fundamental rights invalid just because of the breach of public order and good customs.Violation of the law and contrary to public order and good customs are reasons of invalidity of juristic acts respectively,while the fundamental rights through the public order and good custom could independently make the juristic acts invalid.As described in the 〈approval〉 of the Supreme Court 'shall not be liable for work-related injuries' case in 1988,the fundamental rights were considered to be not only law but also public order and good customs to invalidate the effectiveness of juristic acts.This is not appropriate from a methodological point of view and should be reviewed.
出处
《法学家》
CSSCI
北大核心
2009年第6期134-144,共11页
The Jurist
关键词
基本权利
基本权利第三人效力
效力性强制规定
公序良俗
Fundamental Rights
A Third Person Effect of the Fundamental Rights
Mandatory Rules on Effectiveness
Public Order and Good Customs
