埋藏物的权属纷争与宪法解答——以“天价乌木案”为例.pdfVIP

第 13 卷第4 期 Vol. 13 , No.4 昆明理工大学学报{社会科学版} 2013 年8 月 Joùmal of Kunming University of Science and Technology Aug.2013 埋藏物的权属纷争与宪法解答 一一以天价乌木案为例 曾娜 (昆明理工大学法学院，云南昆明 6505∞) 摘 要:在天价乌木案的讨论中，民法所面临的困窘只有通过宪法财产权规范的介入才能够得 以消解， !!p 必须反忠民法通则第 79 条埋藏物归国家所有条款的合宪性问题。宪法上财产权保障的核心是 财产的私使用性原则，目的是提供个人自由和自我统治所必需的物质前提。基于这一规范目标，在 适用比例原则展开审查之际，应对民法通则第 79 条采取合宪性限定解释，埋藏物仅在法律明确规定属于 国家所有的情况下才可以归为国有，且立法机关对国有财产范围的界定，须受到公共利益的限制。 关键词:夭价乌木案;埋藏物;宪法财产权;比例原则 中图分类号: D9 11. 01 文献标识码:A 文章编号: 1671 -1254 (2013) 04-∞42 -06 The Ownership Issues about Buried Objects and the Constitutional Solutions 一一- An Analysis on the Astronomically - Priced Ebony Case ZENG Na (Faculty of Law, Kunming University of Science and Technology , Kunming 6505∞， Yunnan , China) Abstract :The discussion of the Astronomically - priced Ebony Case focuses on the issue whether the bur- ied objects belong to the state provided by the Article 79 in General Principles of The Civil Law. The dilemma of the civil law can be resolved by the intervention of the constitution. Constitutional 伊arantees of prope此Y rights are based on the principle of private use of property. Its pu甲ose is to provide the citizens with the necess缸y substance premise of individual freedom and self - govemment. From the point of view of the proportionality principle , we should restrictìvely interpret the Article 79. Only when the buried objects 缸e legally owned by the state , will the state hold the ownership right. Furthermore , the legislature should be limited by the public inter- est when it defines the domains of stat