摘要
财产事实支配作为一种自由,是宪法和法律形成的财产权所保护的对象而非财产权本身。对于作为有别于权利的财产事实支配自由,宪法和法律无需加以创设,而只能予以确认并保护。为防止财产事实支配可能受到过度限制或不当干涉,对于财产权人与非财产权人的财产事实支配自由,我国宪法均以“法无限制即可为”的方式予以确认并保护。宪法对于财产事实支配的确认与保护,为国家设立了财产事实支配的保护义务,这包括国家消极保护义务与国家积极保护义务两方面。国家消极保护义务意味着,立法者不得以“法无授权不可为”的方式限制事实支配自由;国家积极保护义务意味着,立法者应具体形成能够保护公民对其财产的事实支配不受其他主体干涉的权利,从而使事实支配的国家积极保护义务在私权领域得以充分实现。基于财产事实支配的宪法定位可知,反对数据财产权利化的观点不能成立。
The factual control of property,as a form of freedom,is the object protected by the property rights formed by the Constitution and laws,rather than the property rights themselves.The Constitution and laws do not need to create the freedom to dispose of property as a fact distinct from rights,but can only confirm and protect it In order to prevent excessive restrictions or improper interference in the factual control of property,the freedom of factual control of property rights for both property and non-property rights holders is recognized and protected by the Constitution of China in the form of‘unrestricted by law.The Constitution recognizes and protects the factual control of property,and establishes a protection obligation for the state to protect the factual control of property,which includes both negative and positive protection obligations of the state.The negative protection obligation of the state means that legislators cannot restrict the freedom of factual control in a way that is'not authorized by law';the obligation of the state to actively protect means that legislators should specifically form the right to protect citizens'factual control over their property from interference by other entities,so that the obligation of the state to actively protect factual control can be fully realized in the field of private rights.Based on the constitutional positioning of factual control of property,it can be seen that the view against the legalization of data property rights cannot be established.
出处
《中国法学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2024年第5期242-262,共21页
China Legal Science
基金
科技部2022年度国家重点研发计划“社会治理与智慧社会科技支撑”重点专项“知识产权司法保护与跨部门协同服务关键技术研究”(项目批准号:2022YFC3303000)的阶段性成果。