違反強制性規定的侵權責任構成

Constitutive Requirement of Tort Liability against Mandatory Provisions

自治與強制協力塑造法治，民法為此建立溝通機制。我國《民法典》總則編、合同編和物權編中設置諸多轉介條款，但侵權責任編付之闕如，違反強制性規定影響侵權責任構成的判斷機制亟待建立。著眼於強制性規定的自身特徵與侵權責任的過錯、因果關係的關聯，可以建構其進入侵權法場域的法理路徑。強制性規定篩選需綜合有無具體行為義務、行為義務的風險防範功能、保護範圍、法政策等判斷。強制性規定中的行為義務具有表達民事權益的功能，設定行為義務時需考慮強行之可能，被違反時可推定行為人對權益侵害具有過錯。強制性規定設定行為義務，會綜合考量相關行為導致損害發生的客觀概率與法律上的價值評價，與因果關係相當性判斷的法理相通，當受害人及其損害屬於強制性規定的保護範圍時，可推定因果關係成立。強制性規定實現了私人監督與民事責任的強化，明確了行為自由的界限。裁判者不得混淆行政責任與侵權責任的責任基礎，應權衡行為自由、權益保護與強制秩序間的關係。

Autonomy and coercion work together to shape the rule of law, and civil law establishes a communication mechanism for this purpose. There are many referral clauses in the general part, contract part and property right part of China 's Civil Code, but there are no such provisions in the tort liability part. Therefore, it is urgent to establish a judgment mechanism that violates the mandatory provisions and affects the composition of tort liability. Focusing on the relationship between the characteristics of mandatory provisions and the fault and causality of tort liability, we can construct a legal path for them to enter the field of tort law. The identification of mandatory provisions needs to be judged by comprehensive factors such as the existence of specific behavioral obligations, the risk prevention function of behavioral obligations, the scope of protection, and legal policies. The behavioral obligation in mandatory provisions has the function of expressing civil rights and interests, and the possibility of mandatory behavior should be considered when setting behavioral obligations. When the behavior obligation is violated, it can be presumed that the actor is at fault for the infringement of rights and interests. Mandatory provisions to set behavioral obligations will comprehensively consider the objective probability and legal value evaluation of damage caused by related behaviors. When the victim and his damage fall within the scope of compulsory protection, it can be presumed that the causal relationship between damage and behavior is established. Mandatory provisions strengthen private supervision and civil liability, and clarify the boundaries of freedom of behavior. Judges should not confuse the basis of administrative responsibility and tort liability, but should weigh the relationship between freedom of behavior, protection of rights and interests and compulsory order.