變動中之消滅時效法：比較法上之觀察

The Changing Landscape of Prescription Law: A Comparative Law Perspective

消滅時效源自「時間令事物晦暗之力量」，長久以來被視為技術性規定，棄置於不起眼的角落。但近20年來在歐洲契約法原則的影響之下，歐陸各國對民法中消滅時效規定進行大刀闊斧的改革。本文從消滅時效之形成史及正當性基礎出發，深入介紹歐洲契約法原則第14章關於消滅時效之規定，並在此框架下分析、介紹現有之修正成果，包括西元（下同）2002年德國債法現代化、法國2008年消滅時效法改革及瑞士債務法之消滅時效改革。在上述改革成果中存在如下共通性：時效期間之縮短、時效期間之齊一化、時效起算之主觀化、時效特約之承認。德國、法國及瑞士均採取雙重期間結構，亦即以主觀起算之短期時效，結合客觀起算之最長時效。歸結言之，消滅時效改革之最新趨勢一方面是消滅時效規範的「超脈絡化」，他方面將「脈絡化」之任務交給當事人及法院，從而達到消滅時效制度的自由化。最末，本文嘗試參酌國際立法經驗，提供立法政策抉擇上之關鍵，以供作未來討論之基礎。

"The limitation period (extinctive prescription) originates from the“obfuscating power of time”. It has long been considered as a technical provision, hence it is often overlooked in the sea of legal knowledge. However, for the past 20 years, influenced by Principles of European Contract Law (PECL), significant reforms have been made by European countries on the regulations of limitation periods. Starting from the development history and the legitimacy basis of limitation periods, this article gives deep introductions to regulations on limitation periods under PECL Chapter 14. Besides, under the above-mentioned frame, the article analyzes and introduces present amending achievements, which include the modernization of the Law of Obligations Act in Germany in 2002, the reform on limitation periods of French Civil Code in 2008, and that of Swiss Code of Obligations in 2013 and 2019. The reformatory achievements above share the following similarities: shortened prescription periods, uniformity on limitation periods, subjective criterions (discoverability criterion) to the commencement of prescription, and the recognition of agreements concerning prescription. Germany, France and Switzerland all simultaneously adopted the structure of double prescription periods, namely the combination of subjective criterion to the commencement of short prescription and that to the maximum period (“long stop”) tied to an objective criterion. In sum, the latest trend of the reform of limitation period is on one hand the“trans-contexualization”of provisions of limitation periods, and on the other hand handing the mission of“contextualizing”itself over to parties and courts, attaining the liberalization of the institution of limitation periods. At the last part, this article attempts to refer to international legislative experiences in order to offer crucial points on legislation policy choices, serving as the foundation of further discussions in the future."