論除斥期間

On the Cut- off Period

除斥期間在我國理論及實務中通常被理解為權利存在的預定期間，與訴訟時效相比，它具有適用對象唯一性（形成權）與期間不變性（不適用中止與中斷規定）等特徵。這些繼受來的結論不夠完整與準確，且缺乏理論證成。本文認為，廣義的權利期間才是權利存在的預定期間，包括除斥期間與狹義的權利期間。除斥期間是須行使的權利的存在期間，屬於特殊的權利期間，狹義權利期間無須關注權利行使。因為在除斥期間中，權利不行使常常影響特定的利益狀況，造成利益關係的不穩定、不清晰，故須對行使行為予以特別規制。訴訟時效也屬於限制權利行使的情形，但其後果卻非限制權利本身。在受時間影響的權利制度中，根據影響強度差異，可由強到弱依次區分為一個制度序列，即權利期間、除斥期間、失權與時效。其中，時間對除斥期間的限制強度大於時效。除斥期間與訴訟時效在本質上即體現為限制強度的不同。影響強度的因素又取決於對相關利益狀況保護的不同需求，即立法者須對權利人利益、相對人利益以及透過保護相對人所體現出來的法律安定等社會公共利益作出利益衡量，而具體的衡量尺度則屬於立法政策問題。判斷不同制度的根本標準在於利益分析，外在標準僅為初步標準。除斥期間與時效所保護的利益時有交叉，因此，僅從外部特徵上對二者作出清晰區分，是困難的。

The Cut-off Period or Preclusive Period (Ausschlussfrist in German) is often understood as predetermined period for the existence of a private right in both Chinese legal theory and practice. And compared to the limitation or prescription, it is characteristic of only one object to apply (i.e. the right to alter the legal relationship or Gestaltungsrecht), unvariable period (therefore it cannot be suspended and interrupted), etc. These conclusions we learned from foreign countries are neither integrate nor accurate, and they are also lack of theoretical argumentation. The Author held the opinion that, the notion of predetermined period for the existence of a private right is for a right period in a broad sense, including cut-off period and the right period in a narrower sense. The right period in narrower sense refers to an existence of period for a right that whether that right should be performed will not be concerned by law, while the cut-off period means an existence of period for a right which should be performed, because the right not to be performed would always exert some influences upon the interests, and therefore will cause interest status uncertain and/or unclear unless the law regulates such performances. Prescription belongs to also the cases which require the law to regulate especially, however, its legal consequence of limiting to right itself is different with the cut-off period. In the right-influenced-by-time systems, they can be divided according to the degree of influence into an order, that is, the right period (in narrower sense), cut-off period, the forfeiture (Verwirkung in German) and the prescription. Among them, the time will place more restriction on cut-off period than on prescription. In essence the differences between the two systems, i.e. the cut-off period and prescription, are showed by different restrictive measurements. The elements of influences depend on different needs to protect variable interests. That is to say, the legislator should balance the interests between or among the right holders, its obligators and/or social public interest which is reflected often by the protection of obligators, such as legal certainty. Of cause, the concrete balancing standard depends on the legal policy. Therefore, the fundamental standard to divide the two systems bases on the analyses of interest, any outer standards serves as only a preliminary one. Due to the balances in the two systems are sometimes overlapped, it is very hard to tell the two systems by reliance barely on the outer standards.