|
|
|
| Distinctions Between Property Damages and Moral Damages for Personal Information Rights Infringement in the Context of Their Convergence in the Legal Practice |
| Zhu Xiaofeng |
| Law School, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing 100081, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The normative basis for compensation for damages resulting from the infringement of personal information rights and interests under the current legal order in China can be divided into two parts: one part includes the elements for the establishment of liability stipulated in article 69 (1) of the Personal Information Protection Act and the method for determining the amount of compensation for property damages stipulated in the second paragraph of the same article. This part applies to acts of processing of personal information other than by a natural person who handles personal information in connection with his or her personal or family affairs. The other part includes the elements for the establishment of liability regulated in the Article 1165 (1) of the Civil Code and the determination of property damages and moral damages regulated in the Articles 1182 and 1183 (1) of the Civil Code, respectively, of which the establishment of liability and the determination of compensation for property damage are mainly applicable to the handling of personal information by a natural person in his/her personal or family affairs, while the method for determining compensation for moral damage is applicable to all issues of compensation for moral damage resulting from infringement of personal information. The key distinction between these two parts of the damages regulation is the issue of proving fault in the establishment of tort liability. Among them, Article 69 (1) of the Personal Information Protection Law adopts the presumed fault because the processor and the person who has the right to personal information are usually in an unequal status in fact, and the adoption of the presumed fault can balance the unequal status and protect the rights and interests of personal information more adequately. The victim’s burden of proof in the context of ordinary fault under Article 1165 (1) of the Civil Code applies primarily to infringements of personal information between natural persons, and does not usually involve the dominant position of the processor in relation to the person entitled to the personal information.The purpose and function of property damages and moral damages in the current law on damages are not the same With regard to the convergence of compensation for property damage and compensation for moral damage, the problem should be solved from the perspective of the function and purpose of compensation for damage, and on the basis of recognizing the convergence of the methods of determining compensation and the factors to be taken into account. Specifically, the factors taken into consideration stipulated in Article 998 of the Civil Code can be differentiated into two types, namely, the damage-filling type and the comforting type, based on the closeness of the factors to the functions of various damages, so that damage-filling type can be taken into account in determining the liability for property damages and the comforting type can be taken into account in determining the liability for moral damages to solve the problem of blurring the boundaries between property damages and moral damages. Furthermore, in light of the role of the careers of the perpetrator and the victim in the determination of liability for damages to non-material personality rights, as stipulated in Article 998 of the Civil Code, it is possible to combine the compensation for property losses and moral damages in the case of infringement of personal information rights and interests with the careers of the perpetrator and the victim, so as to avoid all-or-nothing results. The purpose and function of property damages and moral damages in the current law on damages are not the same With regard to the convergence of compensation for property damage and compensation for moral damage, the problem should be solved from the perspective of the function and purpose of compensation for damage, and on the basis of recognizing the convergence of the methods of determining compensation and the factors to be taken into account. Specifically, the factors taken into consideration stipulated in Article 998 of the Civil Code can be differentiated into two types, namely, the damage-filling type and the comforting type, based on the closeness of the factors to the functions of various damages, so that damage-filling type can be taken into account in determining the liability for property damages and the comforting type can be taken into account in determining the liability for moral damages to solve the problem of blurring the boundaries between property damages and moral damages. Furthermore, in light of the role of the careers of the perpetrator and the victim in the determination of liability for damages to non-material personality rights, as stipulated in Article 998 of the Civil Code, it is possible to combine the compensation for property losses and moral damages in the case of infringement of personal information rights and interests with the careers of the perpetrator and the victim, so as to avoid all-or-nothing results.
|
|
Received: 08 March 2024
|
|
|
|
1 李昊：《个人信息侵权责任的规范构造》，《广东社会科学》2022年第1期，第249-260页。
2 朱晓峰：《论个人数据权益侵害的损害赔偿》，《甘肃社会科学》2024年第4期，第153-163页。
3 邹海林、朱广新主编：《民法典评注：侵权责任编》（1），北京：中国法制出版社，2020年。
4 朱晓峰：《个人信息侵权责任认定中的过错》，《国家检察官学院学报》2023年第4期，第129-143页。
5 刘琬乔：《论共同处理个人信息的侵权损害赔偿责任》，《财经法学》2022年第5期，第107-123页。
6 杨立新：《侵害个人信息权益损害赔偿的规则与适用——〈个人信息保护法〉第69条的关键词释评》，《上海政法学院学报（法治论丛）》2022年第1期，第1-15页。
7 彭诚信、许素敏：《个人信息权益侵权损害赔偿应然范围探讨：基于数字社会的场景》，《社会科学》2023年第7期，第166-177页。
8 杨显滨、王秉昌：《侵害个人信息权的民事责任——以〈个人信息保护法〉与〈民法典〉的解释为中心》，《江苏社会科学》2022年第2期，第75-90页。
9 王利明：《论民事权益位阶：以〈民法典〉为中心》，《中国法学》2022年第1期，第32-54页。
10 王利明：《民法典人格权编中动态系统论的采纳与运用》，《法学家》2020年第4期，第1-12页。
11 程啸：《侵权责任法》，北京：法律出版社，2021年。
12 孙鹏、杨在会：《个人信息侵权中过错的认定及对侵权责任的影响》，《中南大学学报（社会科学版）》2024年第1期，第76-86页。
13 蒋丽华：《无过错归责原则：个人信息侵权损害赔偿的应然走向》，《财经法学》2022年第1期，第32-44页。
14 朱晓峰：《功利主义视角下惩罚性赔偿规则的完善——以民法典编纂为契机》，《吉林大学社会科学学报》2017年第6期，第29-41，203页。
15 马燕：《侵权精神损害赔偿责任主体研究——基于机动车交通事故精神损害赔偿司法实践的反思》，《法律科学》2017年第2期，第174-182页。
16 Bentham J.， An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation， London： Methuen， 1982.
17 《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法 最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法〉的解释》，北京：法律出版社，2021年。
18 刘世友、赵向鸿：《刑事附带民事诉讼中精神损害赔偿问题研究》，《法律适用》2010年第7期，第95-96页。
19 金耀：《个人信息私法规制路径的反思与转进》，《华东政法大学学报》2020年第5期，第75-89页。
20 朱晓峰：《个人信息侵权责任构成要件研究》，《比较法研究》2023年第4期，第132-149页。
21 杨代雄主编：《袖珍民法典评注》，北京：中国民主法制出版社，2022年。
22 李东宇：《论侵害个人信息权益的精神损害赔偿》，《财经法学》2023年第4期，第134-148页。
23 陈现杰：《〈民法典〉第1182条（侵害他人人身权益造成财产损失的赔偿）评注》，《中国应用法学》2023年第3期，第194-214页。
24 最高人民法院民法典贯彻实施工作领导小组主编：《中华人民共和国民法典侵权责任编理解与适用》，北京：人民法院出版社，2020年。
25 王利明主编：《中国民法典评注：人格权编》，北京：人民法院出版社，2021年。
26 杨芳：《肖像权保护和个人信息保护规则之冲突与消融》，《清华法学》2021年第6期，第116-130页。
27 陈甦、谢鸿飞主编：《民法典评注人格权编》，北京：中国法制出版社，2020年。
28 王叶刚：《论侵害人格权益财产损失赔偿中的法院酌定》，《法学家》2021年第3期，第104-115，194页。
29 黄薇主编：《中华人民共和国民法典侵权责任编解读》，北京：中国法制出版社，2020年。
30 高秦伟、杨振：《个人信息保护视域下的数据经纪人及其规制》，《政治与法律》2024年第6期，第159-176页。
31 朱晓峰：《〈民法典〉第1014条（姓名权、名称权不得非法侵害）评注》，《时代法学》2024年第1期，第1-11页。
32 张新宝：《产权结构性分置下的数据权利配置》，《环球法律评论》2023年第4期，第5-20页。
33 徐朵、马泉福：《转载已公开判决书是否侵权之认定》，《人民司法·案例》2021年第32期，第28-33页。
34 高秦伟：《公共数据开放利用制度的民主观及法理阐释》，《甘肃社会科学》2024年第4期，第140-152页。
35 王利明：《民法典人格权编中动态系统论的采纳与运用》，《法学家》2020年第4期，第1-12页。
36 张红：《民法典人格权编立法论》，北京：法律出版社，2020年。
37 冉克平：《肖像权上的财产利益及其救济》，《清华法学》2015年第4期，第67-80页。 |
|
|
|
2025, Vol. 55 
