专业团队

无效合同可以从哪些方面认定？要判断一份合同是否无效，可以从以下几个原则来判断：不非(违)法即合法有效原则；慎重对待地方性法规、行政规章的强制性规定；认定合同无效一般应以当事人请求为前提，法官不要轻易主动地去认定和宣告和法官要慎重行使民事行为效力的释明权等等。

(1)不非(违)法即合法有效原则。

法国法认为“如不能认定不是无效，可以认定有效”，此规则可以作为我国的立法和司法的借鉴。只有法律、行政法规明确规定合同违反某强制性规定无效，合同才能被认定为无效，否则，一概不无效，此即所谓“法不设责即豁免”。对于一份已经成立的合同，只要合同中不存在阻却合法有效的法定事由，该合同就应依法认定为有效。这样既统一了合同效力认定的标准，也充分尊重了合同当事人的意愿，同时也缩小了无效合同的范围，鼓励了交易，不仅在法学理论上而且在司法实践中都是可行的。

(2)慎重对待地方性法规、行政规章的强制性规定。

合同无效应当以全国人大及其常委会制定的法律和国务院制定的行政法规为依据，不得以地方性法规、行政规章为依据。违反法律、行政法规的一般性规定的合同，不再被确认为无效。究其原因，是因为有的地方性法规和部门规章掺杂着各部门、地方的利益，具有一定的地方、部门保护主义的色彩，如以此作为认定合同无效的依据，势必造成交易中禁例如林，民事活动中处处陷阱，行政干预无边，当事人寸步难行的局面。

但是，对于国务院有关主管部门颁布的关系到国计民生和国家重大利益的行政规章中的强制性规定(例如有关外汇、外贸管理方面的规定)，在未上升为法律或行政法规之前，有司法解释的，应依照司法解释的规定，确认违反上述规定的合同无效；无司法解释的，应根据具体情况，以《合同法》中“损害社会公共利益”等理由确认合同无效。而如果机械地以合同未违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定为由，一概宣告合同有效，在当前立法活动滞后的情况下，又会产生恶劣的社会影响。

(3)认定合同无效一般应以当事人请求为前提，法官不要轻易主动地去认定和宣告。

要求他人作为或不作为的权利，该请求权为实体法上的请求权，根据合同法理论及《合同法》中对合同效力的相关规定来看，在法院作出合同无效的认定之前，该合同应该是有效的。除非合同必然无效，法官一般推定有效。只有当当事人一方向法院提出认定合同无效的请求或主张时，法院才能确认合同无效。

但如果合同损害了国家、集体或者社会公共利益的，由于缺乏合同无效的请求权主体，所以允许法院主动认定其无效。笔者认为，这并不是说法院对任何合同都可以主动干预其效力，而是由于请求权主体缺位而造成的。除损害国家、集体或者第三人利益、社会公共利益外，法院不要主动地去认定和宣告合同无效，这样既尊重了当事人的意愿，也达到了稳定交易关系和鼓励交易的目的。

(4)法官要慎重行使民事行为效力的释明权。

在司法实践中如当事人未主张合同无效，则合同无效的确认是法官裁量的结果。鉴于合同的有效或无效对案件的处理迥异，故法官在依照最高法院《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》规定，行使民事行为效力释明权时需格外小心。除非明显违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定导致合同无效，法官以不释明为宜，因为在此情况下认定合同无效是法官自由心证的结果，对此一二审法院及不同法官之间的认识会有所不同，这就可能会导致案件处理结果不同。

(5)认定无效合同启动司法程序和启动行政处罚程序的区别。

有些强制性规范如果当事人予以违反，有可能会因此而受到行政处罚甚至刑事制裁，但并非不一定会承担民事责任，对此法院可建议行政机关处理而不必主动确认合同无效；只有合同一方当事人违反了会影响其民事行为及责任的强制性规范时，法院才能对其作出相应的认定。

What aspects can be used to determine an invalid contract? To determine whether a contract is invalid, the following principles can be used: the principle of legality and validity is not a violation of the law; Be cautious in handling mandatory provisions of local regulations and administrative rules; The determination of invalidity of a contract should generally be based on the request of the parties, and judges should not easily take the initiative to determine and declare it, and judges should exercise the power of interpretation of the effectiveness of civil acts with caution.

(1) The principle of legality and validity is not a violation of the law.

French law believes that "if it cannot be determined as invalid, it can be determined as valid", and this rule can serve as a reference for China's legislation and judiciary. Only when laws and administrative regulations clearly stipulate that a contract is invalid if it violates a mandatory provision, can the contract be deemed invalid. Otherwise, none of them are invalid, which is known as "exemption without legal liability". For an established contract, as long as there are no legal reasons that hinder its validity, the contract should be recognized as valid in accordance with the law. This not only unifies the standards for determining the effectiveness of contracts, but also fully respects the wishes of the contracting parties. At the same time, it narrows the scope of invalid contracts and encourages transactions, which is feasible not only in legal theory but also in judicial practice.

(2) Be cautious with mandatory provisions of local regulations and administrative rules.

The invalidity of a contract shall be based on the laws formulated by the National People's Congress and its Standing Committee and the administrative regulations formulated by the State Council, and shall not be based on local regulations or administrative rules. Contracts that violate the general provisions of laws and administrative regulations are no longer recognized as invalid. The reason for this is that some local regulations and departmental rules are mixed with the interests of various departments and regions, with a certain degree of local and departmental protectionism. If used as a basis for determining the invalidity of contracts, it will inevitably lead to prohibitions in transactions, traps in civil activities, unlimited administrative intervention, and difficulties for the parties involved.

However, for mandatory provisions in administrative regulations issued by relevant competent departments of the State Council that are related to national economy, people's livelihood, and major national interests (such as provisions on foreign exchange and foreign trade management), if there is a judicial interpretation before they are elevated to law or administrative regulations, the contract that violates the above provisions should be confirmed invalid in accordance with the provisions of the judicial interpretation; If there is no judicial interpretation, the invalidity of the contract should be confirmed based on specific circumstances, using reasons such as "damaging social public interests" in the Contract Law. If the contract is mechanically declared valid on the grounds that it does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, it will have a negative social impact in the current lagging legislative activities.

(3) The determination of contract invalidity should generally be based on the request of the parties, and judges should not easily take the initiative to determine and declare it.

The right to demand action or inaction from others is a right of request in substantive law. According to the theory of contract law and relevant provisions on contract effectiveness in the Contract Law, the contract should be valid until the court makes a determination of contract invalidity. Unless the contract is inevitably invalid, judges generally assume it to be valid. Only when one party makes a request or claim to the court to determine the invalidity of the contract, can the court confirm the invalidity of the contract.

But if the contract harms the national, collective or public interests, due to the lack of the subject with the right to claim the invalidity of the contract, the court is allowed to proactively determine its invalidity. The author believes that this is not to say that the court can actively intervene in the effectiveness of any contract, but rather due to the absence of the subject of the right to claim. In addition to harming the interests of the state, the collective, or third parties, as well as the public interest, the court should not proactively determine and declare the invalidity of the contract. This not only respects the wishes of the parties, but also achieves the goal of stabilizing transaction relationships and encouraging transactions.

(4) Judges should exercise the power of interpretation of the effectiveness of civil acts with caution.

In judicial practice, if the parties do not claim the invalidity of the contract, the confirmation of the invalidity of the contract is the result of the judge's discretion. Given that the validity or invalidity of a contract varies greatly in the handling of cases, judges need to be particularly careful when exercising the right to interpret the validity of civil acts in accordance with the Supreme Court's Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Litigation. Unless there is a clear violation of mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations leading to the invalidity of the contract, it is advisable for the judge not to clarify, because in this case, determining the invalidity of the contract is the result of the judge's free evaluation. The understanding of this may vary between the first and second instance courts and different judges, which may lead to different results in case handling.

(5) The difference between initiating judicial procedures and initiating administrative penalty procedures for determining invalid contracts.

Some mandatory norms may be subject to administrative penalties or even criminal sanctions if the parties violate them, but they may not necessarily bear civil liability. In this regard, the court may suggest that the administrative authority handle it without actively confirming the invalidity of the contract; Only when one party to the contract violates mandatory norms that would affect their civil behavior and liability, can the court make a corresponding determination.