论管制征收构成标准——以美国联邦最高法院判例为中心  

On Standards of Regulatory Taking:Centering on Supreme Court Cases of United States

作　　者：王玎 WANG Ding

机构地区：[1]北京电子科技学院

出　　处：《法学评论》2020年第1期160-173,共14页Law Review

基　　金：2018年度北京市社科基金项目“北京市行政执法方式创新与变革研究”（项目编号：18JDFXB001）的阶段性成果

摘　　要：美国联邦最高法院在审理33个管制征收案件时主要采用是否属于物理性侵占、是否属于经济利益互惠、财产权行使是否构成对公共或他人的妨碍、是否符合公共利益、对财产价值的影响程度五类标准。管制征收构成标准的体系构建,需通过对五类标准进行形式与实质递进式的双阶层划分来实现:是否属于物理性侵占、是否属于经济利益互惠以及财产权行使是否构成公共妨碍为第一阶层的形式标准。一项管制行为属于物理性侵占即构成管制征收;管制行为属于经济利益互惠或者财产权行使构成对公共或他人的妨碍,则不构成管制征收。在不属于物理性侵占、经济利益互惠或者财产权行使构成公共妨碍的情况下,对是否符合公共利益和对财产价值的影响程度作第二阶层的实质判断。不符合公共利益标准或者对财产价值造成过度影响的管制行为构成应于补偿的管制征收。In reviewing 33regulatory taking cases,the Supreme Court of the United States mainly adopted five standards:whether it is physical occupation,whether it is the economic reciprocity,whether the exercise of property rights constitutes a nuisance,whether it is for the public interest,and the degree of impact on the value of the property.The construction of the standard of regulatory taking can be realized by dividing it into two classes:the first class contains whether it is physical occupation,whether it is the economic reciprocity,whether the exercise of property rights constitutes a nuisance.If an administrative action belongs to physical occupation,it can be regarded as regulatory taking.If an administrative action belongs to economic reciprocity or nuisance,it cannot be regarded as regulatory taking.If an administrative action does not belong to physical occupation,economic reciprocity or nuisance,then we come to the second class.If an administrative action does not meet the criteria of public interest or has an excessive impact on the value of property,it should be regarded as regulatory taking.

关 键 词：管制征收 准征收 财产权 公共利益 

分 类 号：D971.2[政治法律—法学] DD912.1