《德国民法典》第817条第2句的不当得利排除规则——以违法的线上博彩为例

The Exclusion of Restitution under Section 817 Sentence 2 of the German Civil Code:An Example of Illegal Online Gambling

线上博彩合同的效力以及玩家在合同被认定为无效后能否要求返还所投入赌注的问题,向来存在争议。就前一问题,作者提出,因《德国博彩业州际协议》(2012)第4条第4款以及《德国刑法典》第284条都可被认定为《德国民法典》第134条意义上的禁止性规定,故线上博彩合同在民法上应被认定为无效;而在无效后的具体法律效果问题上,作者认为可能会产生非债清偿型不当得利(condictio indebiti)以及不正当原因之不当得利(condictio ob iniustam vel turpem causam)的竞合。前者固然可能因博彩玩家明知无给付义务而被排除(《德国民法典》第814条),但这一排除效力并不及于不正当原因的不当得利;后者的适用则取决于对不法原因给付制度的把握。作者主张从该规定的主观要件与规范目的出发,避免对玩家赌资返还请求权施以不当限制。一方面,不当得利返还请求权的排除对玩家而言是一项重大不利,因此在适用上要求其具备违反某一法律规定的意识;另一方面,该制度旨在贯彻“法律保护之拒绝”的规范理念,纵使认定博彩玩家一方具有不法性,考虑到其远低于博彩平台运营者所具备的不法性以及禁止性规定的规范目的,均应对之进行目的性限缩,承认玩家的赌资返还请求权。

The validity of online gambling contracts and the issue of whether players can demand the return of their stakes after such contracts are deemed invalid have always been contentious.Regarding the former issue,the author argues that since both Section 4(4)of the German Interstate Treaty on Gambling(GlüStV)(2012)and Section 284 of the German Criminal Code can be considered prohibitive provisions according to Section 134 of the German Civil Code,online gambling contracts should be deemed invalid under civil law.As for the specific legal effects following the invalidity,the author suggests that a concurrence of unjust enrichment due to non-debt payment(condictio indebiti)and unjust enrichment due to an improper or immoral cause(condictio ob iniustam vel turpem causam)may arise.While the former might be excluded because the gambling player is aware of having no obligation to render payment(Section 814 of the German Civil Code),this exclusion does not extend to unjust enrichment due to an improper cause.The application of the latter depends on the understanding of the system governing payment for unlawful reasons.The author advocates for avoiding undue restrictions on the player s claim for the return of stakes,based on the subjective elements of this provision and its normative purpose.On the one hand,the exclusion of the unjust enrichment claim is a significant disadvantage for the player,and therefore,its application requires awareness of a violation of a legal provision.On the other hand,this system aims to implement the normative idea of“denial of legal protection.”Even if the gambling player s conduct is deemed illegal,considering that the player s illegality is significantly lower than that of the gambling platform operator,as well as the normative purpose of the prohibitive provisions,purposive restriction should be applied,and the player s claim for the return of stakes should be recognized.