房屋征收中停产停业损失补偿的分配问题研究

On the Compensation Distribution for Expropriation of a Commercial Rental Property with Business Suspended

在房屋存在租赁关系时,房屋征收后的停产停业损失补偿如何在房屋所有权人和承租人之间进行分配,目前争议很大。现行大多数立法倾向由具有被征收人身份的房屋所有权人首先获得补偿,仅有少部分地方立法创新性规定了约定优先原则,以及没有约定或约定不明时承租人可直接获得补偿。但目前的司法实践在承租人能否获得补偿方面结果不尽一致。基于停产停业损失理由的分析,以及民法的公平原则,房屋所有权人和承租人均有权获得补偿,立法应予明确规定。具体而言,房屋所有权人参照租金损失确定补偿数额,承租人参照实际经营损失确定补偿金额,立法还可以明确具体的分配比例以便于操作。为了更好保护承租人权利,法律应赋予承租人对行政征收补偿行为不服时申请行政复议及提起行政诉讼的资格。

When the owner of the house is not the factual producer or business operator during the lease term in the house,there is a great deal of controversy as to how the compensation for loss of production and business after expropriation of a house is to be allocated between the owner and the tenant.From the legislative perspective,the compensation distribution for house expropriation has undergone several changes,and the protection of the tenant's rights have gradually weakened.Since the tenant does not have the title of the property,current laws favor the owner of the house to be the first to receive the compensation for expropriation,and only a few local ordinances have creatively stipulated the"Priority of Agreement"rule,as well as that the tenant may receive compensation directly when even in some cases there is no agreement or when the agreement is not explicit.From the perspective of judicial practice,it has yielded inconsistent results as to whether the tenant can receive compensation.The court's judgments are divided into two categories:one is that the compensation for the loss of business being suspended is attributed to the owner of the house alone,and the other is distributed between the owner and tenant.Nevertheless,in general,by the principle of fairness in civil law,most courts hold that the tenant should get part of the compensation for the loss.Hence,the legislation and judicial decisions on the compensation for the loss are widely divergent.Theoretically,both the owner and the tenant should be entitled to compensation for the loss.First of all,as for the causal relationship of the compensation,on the owner of the house side,it is believed that the expropriated house is the premise of engaging in production and business activities;on the tenant's side,it holds that the actual business activity is the direct cause of the compensation for the loss.Both of them are indispensable.Secondly,in terms of obtaining compensation for loss,the owner is responsible for providing the title certificate of the property to prove that the house is non-residential,and the tenant is to provide the corresponding business license,proving the existence of the business,both sides contributed to the compensation for loss;Additionally,speaking of the consequences of the expropriation,the tenant is bound to suffer losses,and so does the owner due to the loss of rent because of the expropriation,which altogether demonstrates that the compensation should be beneficial to the owner and the tenant.Therefore,based on the principle of fairness in civil law,the legislation should stipulate that both the owner and the tenant are entitled to receive compensation,which is conducive to the voluntary and efficient vacating of the house by the tenant and facilitates the process of the expropriation as well.Precisely,it should determine the amount of compensation to the owner regarding the loss of rent and the tenant concerning the actual loss of business,and the local legislation can also specify the exact distribution ratio accordingly.Besides,to better protect the tenant's rights,the law should grant the tenant the right to apply for administrative reconsideration and file an administrative complaint if he/she is unsatisfied with the compensation.