债权作为一种非常重要的财产权,以自由转让为原则,以禁止转让为例外。我国《民法典》允许债权自由转让,但同时也规定了三种不得转让的债权,其中基于对公共政策和对社会公共利益的保护,法律规定不得转让的债权不得转让。从现行法律规定来...债权作为一种非常重要的财产权,以自由转让为原则,以禁止转让为例外。我国《民法典》允许债权自由转让,但同时也规定了三种不得转让的债权,其中基于对公共政策和对社会公共利益的保护,法律规定不得转让的债权不得转让。从现行法律规定来看,鲜有法律直接明文规定某类债权禁止转让,更多的是限制债权转让的条件,如受让主体、受让方式等。如果当事人转让了法定不得转让的债权,并且禁止性规范明文规定了转让的法律后果,则根据文义解释的方法判断转让合同的效力即可;如果禁止性规范没有明确转让的法律后果,则根据负担行为与处分行为的分离原则和抽象原则会产生两种情形:转让合同这一负担行为无效、转让合同有效但是债权转让的履行行为无效,后者同样不能发生权利转移的效果。As a very important property right, creditor’s rights take free transfer as the principle, and prohibit transfer as the exception. China’s “Civil Code” allows the free transfer of claims, but also stipulates three kinds of non-transferable claims, based on the protection of public policy and social public interests, the law stipulates that non-transferable claims shall not be transferred. From the perspective of the current legal provisions, few laws directly stipulate the prohibition of the transfer of certain types of claims, and more restrict the conditions of the transfer of claims, such as the subject of the transfer and the way of the transfer. If the parties transfer the legally non-transferable claims, and the prohibitive norms explicitly stipulate the legal consequences of the transfer, the validity of the transfer contract can be judged according to the method of textual interpretation;If the prohibition norm does not specify the legal consequences of the transfer, two situations will arise according to the separation principle and the abstraction principle of the burden act and the disposition act: the burden act of the transfer contract is invalid, the transfer contract is valid but the performance act of the assignment of creditor’s rights is invalid, and the latter cannot have the effect of the transfer of rights.展开更多
文摘债权作为一种非常重要的财产权,以自由转让为原则,以禁止转让为例外。我国《民法典》允许债权自由转让,但同时也规定了三种不得转让的债权,其中基于对公共政策和对社会公共利益的保护,法律规定不得转让的债权不得转让。从现行法律规定来看,鲜有法律直接明文规定某类债权禁止转让,更多的是限制债权转让的条件,如受让主体、受让方式等。如果当事人转让了法定不得转让的债权,并且禁止性规范明文规定了转让的法律后果,则根据文义解释的方法判断转让合同的效力即可;如果禁止性规范没有明确转让的法律后果,则根据负担行为与处分行为的分离原则和抽象原则会产生两种情形:转让合同这一负担行为无效、转让合同有效但是债权转让的履行行为无效,后者同样不能发生权利转移的效果。As a very important property right, creditor’s rights take free transfer as the principle, and prohibit transfer as the exception. China’s “Civil Code” allows the free transfer of claims, but also stipulates three kinds of non-transferable claims, based on the protection of public policy and social public interests, the law stipulates that non-transferable claims shall not be transferred. From the perspective of the current legal provisions, few laws directly stipulate the prohibition of the transfer of certain types of claims, and more restrict the conditions of the transfer of claims, such as the subject of the transfer and the way of the transfer. If the parties transfer the legally non-transferable claims, and the prohibitive norms explicitly stipulate the legal consequences of the transfer, the validity of the transfer contract can be judged according to the method of textual interpretation;If the prohibition norm does not specify the legal consequences of the transfer, two situations will arise according to the separation principle and the abstraction principle of the burden act and the disposition act: the burden act of the transfer contract is invalid, the transfer contract is valid but the performance act of the assignment of creditor’s rights is invalid, and the latter cannot have the effect of the transfer of rights.
