论行政法律行为对基本权利的事实损害——基于德国法的考察

Injury-in-Fact to Fundamental Rights by Administrative Legal Act—Based on an Analysis of German Law

在德国,行政法律行为对公民基本权利间接引发的损害被称为"事实损害"。其中,行政法律行为间接给行政相对人带来的损害被称为后果效力的事实损害,而间接给第三人带来的损害则被称为附带效力的事实损害。与其他损害形式一样,宪法基本权利条款原则上也防御事实损害。但对事实损害的防御不得导致基本权利的防御范围漫无边际,需要对其进行限定。对于如何限定基本权利的防御范围,德国公法学界存在三种具有代表性的观点,分别为"归责限定说"、"主观要件说"和"规范目的说",其中"规范目的说"在宪法上最具合理性。事实损害与法律保留并非无法兼容,当法律仅授权采取某一措施而未提及后果时,需要探寻法律授权的目的,如果该项措施可能引发的事实损害后果不被授权目的所涵盖,则行政机关不得采取这一措施,否则违背法律保留原则。事实损害与其他形式的损害在法律后果上并无本质差别。

In Germany, 'injury-in-fact' refers to any injury to fundamental rights of citizens caused indirectly by an administrative legal act.An indirect injury caused by an administrative legal act to an administrative counterpart is called an injury-in-fact of consequential effect whereas an indirect injury caused by an administrative legal act to a third party is called an injury-in-fact of additional effect.As a principle,the Fundamental Rights Clause in German Constitution protects citizens from injury-in-fact as well as from other forms of injuries.However,such protection from injury-in-fact shall not result in unlimited protection of fundamental rights and therefore shall be restricted by the doctrine of normative purpose.According to the principle of 'law reservation',it is necessary to find out the purpose of legal authorization if the law authorizes a certain action without mentioning the consequences.An administrative unit shall not take such an action if the consequences arising from it may not correspond to its purpose.There is no essential difference in terms of legal consequence between injury-in-fact and other forms of injuries.