论“通知—必要措施”规则之规范定位及制度构造

On the Standard Orientation and System Structure of the Rule of“Notice Necessary Measures”

《民法典》网络侵权制度对反通知和恢复规则的规定填补了原《侵权责任法》“通知—必要措施”规则的不完整性,使之成为闭环的法律系统,但却在规则适用上存在“一刀切”的问题。《民法典》未从正面规定网络服务提供者承担侵权责任的构成要件,故基于网络服务提供者判断能力之局限,须厘清通知规则的免责性质,在维护网络空间的表达与获取信息的自由和遏制不正当竞争之间寻求平衡。此外,亦应区分受保护的权利而对通知规则进行类型构造。《民法典》未区分“错误通知”和“恶意通知”,应对“错误通知”作目的性限缩,仅限于通知人“非善意”的情形。对“非善意”的理解应采应知的标准,并将主观状态的举证责任施以通知人,由法院在个案中结合具体情形作出判断。

The rules of counter notification and recovery in the Internet tort system of the civil code make up for the incompleteness of the“Notification necessary measures”rule in the original tort liability law,and make it a closed-loop legal system.However,there is a“one size fits all”problem in the application of the rules The civil code does not prescribe the constituent elements of Internet service provider s tort liability from a positive perspective.Therefore,based on the limitation of Internet service provider s judgment ability,it is necessary to clarify the exemption nature of the notification rule,and seek a balance between maintaining the freedom of expression and access to information in Cyberspace and curbing unfair competition.In addition,we should distinguish the protected rights and construct the notification rules The civil code does not distinguish between“wrong notice”and“malicious notice”,so the“wrong notice”should be purposefully limited,which is only limited to the situation that the notifier is“not in good faith”.The understanding of“non bona fide”should adopt the standard of due knowledge,and the burden of proof of subjective state should be imposed on the informer,and the court should make a judgment according to the specific situation in the case.