波斯纳法官谈网约车的规制——伊利诺伊州运输贸易协会诉芝加哥市案  

Richard A. Posner's Perspective on the Proper Regulation of Transportation Network Providers: Illinois Transportation Trade Association v. City of Chicago

作　　者：施立栋[1] 

机构地区：[1]苏州大学王健法学院

出　　处：《苏州大学学报（法学版）》2017年第4期153-157,共5页Journal of Soochow University：Law Edition

基　　金：江苏高校区域法治发展协同创新中心重点课题"区域立法与区域治理现代化研究"(项目编号:QYFZFZ201503)的阶段性成果

摘　　要：芝加哥市2014年出台的一部网约车法规,设定了比传统的出租车和汽车租赁行业更为宽松的管理规则。出租车和汽车租赁行业不服该法规,认为这一立法未经补偿就剥夺了其财产权,且有违法律的平等对待原则。波斯纳法官撰写的判决意见指出:只要未没收出租车或租赁汽车的特许经营执照,就不构成应予补偿的公益征收行为;对两类车辆制定不同的管理规则,是考虑到二者在监控机制、运行特点等方面有所不同,这是为法律所容许的合理差别,并不违背平等保护原则;财产权并不是一项免于竞争的权利,允许网约车进入运输市场有助于推动该市场的竞争,也与规制缓和的趋势相契合。In 2014,The City of Chicago enacted an ordinance regulating the Transportation Network Providers(TNPs),setting more permissive rules for TNPs than traditional taxies and car rental industry. The industry of taxi and rental cars challenged this ordinance on the ground that it had taken away their property for a public use without compensating them,and it denied the equal protection of law as well. Richard A. Posner,the Circuit Judge,delivered the opinion of the Court. He ruled :(1)Since the City of Chicago in this case had not confiscated any medallions,the merely exposing the taxicab company to the competition from TNPs does constitute a takings for public use that should be compensated.(2)The different nature of screening and operation between taxi service and TNP service can justify the different regulatory schemes,so the differences of the ordinances do not violate the equal protection of law.(3)"Property" does not include a right to be free from competition,and permitting the entrance of TNPs into the transportation market can stimulate greater competition in this market and therefore give an impetus to the deregulation movement.

关 键 词：网约车 波斯纳 公益征收 平等保护 合理差别 规制缓和 

分 类 号：D922.1[政治法律—宪法学与行政法学]