阳光权法律二重性在城乡规划管理中的界定  

DEFINITION OF DUALITY OF SUNLIGHT RIGHT IN URBAN-RURAL PLANNING ADMINISTRATION

作　　者：陈勇[1] 华晨[1] CHEN Yong;HUA Chen

机构地区：[1]浙江大学建筑工程学院

出　　处：《城市规划》2019年第10期86-93,113,共9页City Planning Review

摘　　要：从《物权法》出发,讨论了阳光权的相邻权和地役权法律二重性在城乡规划管理中的界定.通过逻辑分析、实证分析及比较研究,指出日照标准只有下限没有上限,无法对二重性进行有效界定;政府行政自由裁量缺乏上限,受到广泛质疑;法院对阳光权的行政程序判决无助于二重性的实体界定;城乡规划实质界定了二重性,但其法律效力存疑.提出二重性界定不但要注重分界点,还要从三个方面入手共同操作:市民以事实相邻关系作为阳光权的相邻权的上限,通过民主参与和司法诉讼影响二重性界定;政府应当在控制性详细规划编制中以现实相邻关系为下限、规划相邻关系为上限,在此范围内的自由裁量推定有效;法院依据衡平原则对阳光权进行最终判决,实质决定二重性的界定.Based on the Property Law, this paper focuses on how to define the duality of the sunlight right, the neighboring rights and easement in urban-rural planning administration. By means of logic analysis, empirical analysis and comparative studies, below problems are pointed out: the sunlight standard is defined only with the lower limit without the upper limit, which leads to an ineffective definition of the duality;the administrative discretion has been doubted and challenged due to absence of necessary upper limits;the administrative proceeding does not help to fully define the subject of the duality;urban-rural planning defines the duality in substance, however with doubtful legal validity. The paper suggests that the definitions of the duality should not only stress the cutting point but also highlight the following three aspects: citizen make the actual neighboring rights as the upper limit of neighboring rights, and produce influence on the definition through democratic participation and legal lawsuit;the government should define the actual neighboring rights as the lower limit and the neighboring rights in planning as the upper limit, and be highly discretionary and presumption of validity within this limits;and the court should participate and affect the definitions by the ultimate judicial sentence and equitable principle.

关 键 词：物权 阳光权 相邻权 地役权 城乡规划 

分 类 号：TU984[建筑科学—城市规划与设计]