法律中征用条款的合宪性分析——从疫情防控对国有财产的征用切入  

A Constitutional Analysis of Requisition Clauses in Law:Starting from the Requisition and Control of State--owned Property

作　　者：王磊[1] Wang Lei

机构地区：[1]北京大学法学院

出　　处：《复印报刊资料（宪法学、行政法学）》2020年第9期89-96,共8页CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

基　　金：2017年度教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地重大项目“世界各国代议制度和中国人大制度比较研究”(17JJD820001)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：我国《宪法》中的征用条款有两个特点:一是征用针对的是非国有财产,二是政府应当补偿,而不论被征用财产是否毁损、灭失或能否归还,但是否毁损、灭失或能否归还是确定补偿数额的重要因素。在疫情防控过程中,一些地方政府错误地使用了征用措施。征用不同于调用,政府对国有财产可以采取调用、使用等措施,且没有补偿的法定义务。我国一些法律中的征用条款或许不符合《宪法》中有关征用的规定,混淆了征用与调用所指向的财产在性质上的区别,同时把征用之后的补偿义务错误地分解为“归还原物无须补偿”和“如有毁损则进行补偿”两种情况。为了有效保障宪法尊严,维护宪法权威,应不断推进合宪性审查。The requisition clause in Constitution has two characteristics.One is that the requisition is aimed at the non-state-owned property,and the other is that the government should give compensation,regardless of whether the property is damaged,lost or whether it can be returned.Of course,whether it is damaged,lost or whether it can be returned is an important factor to determine the amount of compensation.In the process of epidemic prevention and control,some local governments have mistakenly used requisition measures.Requisition is different from transfer,and the government can take measures such as transfer and use to state-owned property,and there is no legal obligation to.compensate.Some laws on requisition do not comply with the provisions on requisition in the Constitution.They confuse the difference in nature between the property aimed by requisition and the property aimed by transfer,and at the same time,they mistakenly divide the legal obligation of compensation after requisition into two cases:no compensation for the returned original property and compensation for any damage.In order to effectively protect the dignity of the constitution and maintain the authority of the constitution,the constitutional review should be continuously promoted.

关 键 词：征用 调用 私有财产 国有财产 合宪性分析 

分 类 号：D92[政治法律—法学]