“限购令”的法律解释
发布时间：2018-10-30 18:56
【摘要】：近来,为了稳定物价和抑制通货膨胀,国务院和一些地方政府陆续颁布了针对某些商品的价格调控措施。最典型的例子是国务院和一些地方政府为抑制房价过快上涨,于2011年初出台的一系列调控房地产市场的措施,这些措施主要表现为"限购令"、"限贷令"和"限价令"。这些价格调控措施是各级政府为了稳定物价而出台的临时性调控措施,其在维护市场秩序和消费者权益方面有其合理性,但也引起了学者的不少争议。争议的焦点主要是这种临时性调控措施的合法性和正当性问题,具体体现为这些调控措施在调控主体、调控途径、调控效力等方面与相关法律规定尚有较大差距,有异于我国法律规定的调控措施,因而有与宪法、立法法、价格法、税收征收管理法等法律相抵触之嫌。这些调控措施具有临时性、应急性、强制性等特征,更接近于紧急状态下的应对措施。从法治的角度考虑,这种临时性的调控措施应当适时退出,让位于规范的、作用相对持久的法定调控措施。基于此,本刊特组织一些学者对这些调控措施予以探讨。
[Abstract]:Recently, in order to stabilize prices and curb inflation, the State Council and some local governments have promulgated price control measures for certain commodities. The most typical example is a series of measures introduced by the State Council and some local governments in early 2011 to curb the excessive rise in house prices, mainly through "purchase restrictions", "loan restrictions" and "price limits". These price control measures are temporary measures introduced by governments at all levels in order to stabilize prices. They are reasonable in maintaining market order and consumers' rights and interests, but have also aroused many controversies among scholars. The focus of the dispute is mainly on the legitimacy and legitimacy of this temporary control measure, which is embodied in the fact that there is still a big gap between these measures and the relevant laws and regulations in the aspects of the subject, the way and the effectiveness of the regulation and control. There are some regulation measures which are different from the laws of our country, so they conflict with the constitution, legislative law, price law, tax collection and management law and so on. These measures have the characteristics of temporary, acute and compulsory, and are closer to the emergency response. From the point of view of the rule of law, this temporary control measure should withdraw in due course and give way to the normative and relatively lasting legal control measures. Based on this, this journal specially organized some scholars to discuss these control measures.
【作者单位】： 上海财经大学法学院;
【基金】：笔者主持的国家社科基金青年项目《和谐社会与理性制度选择》(2005年)的阶段性成果(项目编号:05CFX001)
【分类号】：F293.3
，
本文编号：2300878
[Abstract]:Recently, in order to stabilize prices and curb inflation, the State Council and some local governments have promulgated price control measures for certain commodities. The most typical example is a series of measures introduced by the State Council and some local governments in early 2011 to curb the excessive rise in house prices, mainly through "purchase restrictions", "loan restrictions" and "price limits". These price control measures are temporary measures introduced by governments at all levels in order to stabilize prices. They are reasonable in maintaining market order and consumers' rights and interests, but have also aroused many controversies among scholars. The focus of the dispute is mainly on the legitimacy and legitimacy of this temporary control measure, which is embodied in the fact that there is still a big gap between these measures and the relevant laws and regulations in the aspects of the subject, the way and the effectiveness of the regulation and control. There are some regulation measures which are different from the laws of our country, so they conflict with the constitution, legislative law, price law, tax collection and management law and so on. These measures have the characteristics of temporary, acute and compulsory, and are closer to the emergency response. From the point of view of the rule of law, this temporary control measure should withdraw in due course and give way to the normative and relatively lasting legal control measures. Based on this, this journal specially organized some scholars to discuss these control measures.
【作者单位】： 上海财经大学法学院;
【基金】：笔者主持的国家社科基金青年项目《和谐社会与理性制度选择》(2005年)的阶段性成果(项目编号:05CFX001)
【分类号】：F293.3
，
本文编号：2300878
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/lfsflw/2300878.html