连带债权——因多余而无从认知的本质?

The Institute of Solidary Creditors --An Unknown for its Redundant Essence？

古典罗马法发展连带债权制度（或称共同及连带债权人制度）是为了方便多数人管理其债权。罗马法上不承认代理与债权让与。只有连带债权制度能允许每个债权人收取债权、对债务人提起诉讼或处分债权并对全体债权人发生效力。欧洲普通法中承认代理与债权让与,因此不再需要连带债权。然而其仍被规定进了现代法典中,这迄今仍导致混乱。连带债权关系被错误地当作连带债务关系的镜面规则。但是,对其功能、适用范围以及单个债权人的权利（得处分债权或仅得收取债权）并无统一意见。连带债权的规则并不符合其主要适用情形（即夫妻间或当事人间的联名账户）。因为认为每个债权人自身都享有请求履行的权利,债权的价值并不归属于任何一债权人,所以在支付不能的情况下会导致问题。法定连带债权的案型非常少见,连带债权在当下不具任何有意义的功能,应当被废除。如果多人欲共享债权,他们可以授予彼此代理权或对全体发生效力的处分债权的权利。

The institute of solidary creditors （or joint and several creditors ） was developed in classical Roman law in order to facilitate the management of a claim by several persons. Agency and cession were not recognized by Roman law. Only the institute of solidary creditorship allowed each creditor to collect the claim,bring action against the debtor or dispose of the claim with effect against all creditors. After agency and cession were recognized in the ius commune, there was no longer any need for solidary creditorship. It was retained nevertheless and found its way into modem codifications where it causes confusion until today. Solidary creditorship is wrongly regarded as a mirror image to solidary debtorship. There is no agreement about its function, about its scope of application and about the rights of a single creditor （ general power to dispose of the claim or merely power to collect it？）. The rules on solidary creditorship do not fit to its supposed main case of application, namely the joint account of spouses or partners. Since each creditor is supposed to have an own legal right to the full performance, the value of the claim is not attributed to anyone, which causes problems in insolvency cases. Cases of solidary creditorship by law are rare. Solidary creditorship does not fulfil any meaningful functions today and should be abolished. Where several creditors intend to share a claim, they can grant each other authority to represent the others or powers to dispose of the claim with effect against all.