《物权法》中排除妨害请求权的研究

　　摘 要

　　排除妨害请求权是物权请求权的一种，其历史渊源可以追溯到罗马法上的所有权保全之诉，是指物权人于其物权之圆满状态，被占有以外之方法妨害时，对于妨害人得请求其除去之权利也。这一概念学界通说，但对于如何在立法中如何规定却存在争议。就我国而言，1986 年颁布的《中华人民共和国民法通则》

　　没有提及排除妨害请求权，仅在相邻关系和民事责任条款中出现了“排除妨害”的字眼，显然这对于物权保护明显不利。我国《物权法》颁布之后，在立法上弥补了《民法通则》的不足，在《物权法》第三章专设物权保护一章，体现了我国《物权法》对物权保护的重视，其中第三十五条对排除妨害请求权作出了明确规定，这是符合世界各国立法惯例的，也反映出我国物权保护的立法进步。

　　但是《物权法》第三十五条虽然规定了排除妨害请求权，但没有明确该请求权的构成要件，使得实务中适用该条款时困难重重。法律的价值在于适用的过程，厘清排除妨害请求权的构成要件，对于当事人运用《物权法》第三十五条之规定维护自身权利，以及促进法院准确适用法律实有必要。

　　通说认为，排除妨害请求权的构成要件主要包括：第一，请求权人享有物权；第二，须有妨害物权的事实；第三，物权人无容忍义务；第四，相对人为物权妨害人。一般情况下，请求权人为物权受妨害之人，而妨害人为妨害物权之人，妨害事实的发生时排除妨害请求权得以发生的根据。在上述一般构成要件中，有几个特殊的问题需要注意。例如妨害的认定问题，排除妨害请求权里妨害通常分为法律上的妨害和事实上的妨害，而且妨害要求是现实的、持续的妨害；再如妨害人承担责任的归责基础如何认定，在认定妨害时，自然原因造成妨害是否应由妨害人承担责任也是一个有争议的问题，考虑到妨害排除请求权属于物权请求权，不以过错为要件，因此妨害人不能以自然力作为抗辩理由而免除责任。对于妨害人的责任认定，我国实务中多关注于行为妨害人的责任，较少考虑状态妨害人的责任，这使得当出现行为妨害人与状态妨害人并存时，各地法院的判决结果差异很大，这既影响判决的权威性，也不利于对权利人的保护，因此应确认此种情形下状态妨害人应承担连带责任。此外物权人自身的容忍义务也应该是认定排除妨害请求权成立的关键要件，如果物权人负有容忍义务，则相对人可以在其容忍义务范围内而为妨害并且不承担责任。

　　排除妨害请求权的法律效力主要是使妨害人排除妨害并承担相关费用，但是在动产妨害不动产物权的情形已经相邻不动产之间产生妨害的情形下，就需要考虑具体的妨害情形进而决定如何在双方当事人之间分配责任和费用。

　　以物权请求权所涉及内容为标准，物权请求权可以分为三类：其一，返还原物请求权；其二，排除妨害请求权；其三，妨害预防请求权。由于此三者请求权都是物权请求权，因此界定排除妨害请求权和返还原物请求权、妨害预防请求权的关系对于理清物权请求权内部逻辑体系十分关键，而且也有利于实务中发生的疑难问题得到有效解释和处理。在排除妨害请求权和其他两种物权请求权的关系问题上，最值注意的是排除妨害请求权和返还原物请求权之间的关系上。当排除妨害请求权和返还原物请求权并存时，需要根据利益衡量的原则去考虑两请求权如何行使以及费用如何负担，以维护公平和诚信原则。

　　关键词：排除妨害请求权，妨害，容忍义务，物权请求权

　　Abstract

　　The petition right on removal of interference, the property is in a satisfactorystate of the property occupied by methods other than prejudice, the prejudice peoplehad the right to request its removal. This concept is clean in the field of law in ourcountry.

　　However, Scholars have controversial ideas whether it should be provided incivil law. We can see the petition right on removal of interference was provided in thedraft civil code, but it disappeared in General Principles of The Civil Law of ThePeople's Republic of China. The words of “Removal of Obstacles” only be found in“Neighboring relationship” and “Methods of Bearing Civil Liability”. It is not enoughto protect real right. The Real Right Law of the People's Republic of China whichwas hereby promulgated for effect as of October 1, 2007 makes up the lack ofprotection. It clearly provides the petition right on removal of interference. Thisprovision is not only conformed to international practices, but also can meet thedemand of justice practice in our country.

　　“The Real Right Law of the People's Republic of China”, while Article 35provides the petition right on removal of interference, but it does not definite theconstitutive elements of the petition right on removal of interference. So people havedifficulty in using this article to protect their right.

　　Generally, the constitutive elements of the petition right on removal ofinterference are petitioner, obstruction and tortfeasor. Clearly the petition right onremoval of interference elements, and it is great significance in practice. The thesisanalyzes the common law system of private nuisance elements that constitute anunreasonable prejudice. The irrationality of prejudice is a very complex issue. Weshould be considered highly sensitive and property prejudice to the location factors,the time factor, and prejudice duration and so on. Then, the thesis analyzes Germanpetition right on removal of interference elements that thesis analyzes Germanpetition right on removal of interference elements that the wrongfulness of prejudice.

　　In German law, the petition right on removal of interference request that prejudiceagainst the law. The wrongfulness of prejudice request that public law aspectanalyzes owners tolerance obligations, and focuses on tolerance in the relationsbetween the neighboring obligations. Finally, the thesis has a comparative analysis totwo cases of the Legislative, and gives China's Property Law and constitutingelements of the perfect put forward suggestions.

　　The petition right on removal of interference has the function to protect real rightin common with the petition right on returning of the original object, the petition righton terminating of the danger and Adjacent relation system. Sometimes, it is difficultto distinguish them in practice. Especially, from the cases which happened in ourdaily life, we can found not only common person can't fully understand thedistinctions of them, but also some judges make mistakes when they apply the law.So it's necessary to analysis their similarities and differences in order to reduce themistake.

　　Based on the above, the thesis illustrate the development of the petition right onremoval of interference, the constitutive elements of the petition right on removal ofinterference and the relationship between this and others rights of protecting real right.

　　From using the comparison analysis, historical analysis and case study researchmethods, the author hopes to let everyone understand the petition right on removal ofinterference and this thesis will be benefiting the Chinese legislature in the end.

　　Key words:The Petition Right on Removal of Interference, Tolerance Obligation, Nuisance,Jus Rerem
 

　　目 录

　　摘 要

　　Abstract

　　引 言

　　一、 排除妨害请求权概述

　　（一） 排除妨害请求权的历史渊源

　　（二） 排除妨害请求权的内涵界定

　　二、 排除妨害请求权的构成要件

　　（一） 请求权人享有物权

　　（二） 妨害物权的事实

　　（三） 物权人无容忍义务

　　三、 排除妨害请求权的法律效力

　　（一） 动产被移至不动产而生妨害之情形

　　（二） 不动产间而生妨害之情形

　　四、 排除妨害请求权与返还原物请求权的竞合问题

　　（一） 排除妨害请求权与返还原物请求权“一同发生”

　　（二） 排除妨害请求权与返还原物请求权“冲突并存”

　　结 论

　　参 考 文 献

　　致 谢