ppp项目的法律依据（民法系统中影响PPP项目的关键规定）
ppp项目的法律依据（民法系统中影响PPP项目的关键规定）签订合同的权力机关有权提前撤销合同（然而必须向项目实施者提供补偿）。--单方面撤销合同的权利一，签订合同的行政机关，有凌驾于合同条款之上的权利-单方面修改合同的权利如在法国，签订合同的权力机关有权单方面修改合同的某些方面，尤其是出于公共利益需要必须修改时。签订合同的权力机关无权改变合同的财务条款或其基本属性 ，但是可以改变诸如提供服务的相关说明等合同内容。
-合同订立机构可能推翻合同条款
-法律对PPP操作者实施保护
-其他可能影响PPP安排的民法条款
在很多民法国家，都有一部独立的行政法管辖着PPP有关安排。寻求当地法律咨议 机构检验这些（PPP）原则是否应用于特定的民法体系是很重要的。同样重要的是 ，要注意到，在民法管辖范围内，除非合同特别规定缔约方同意仲裁，该合同将由 管辖法庭强制执行。一些适用于授权安排的的关键管辖规则列举如下：
一，签订合同的行政机关，有凌驾于合同条款之上的权利
-单方面修改合同的权利
如在法国，签订合同的权力机关有权单方面修改合同的某些方面，尤其是出于公共利益需要必须修改时。签订合同的权力机关无权改变合同的财务条款或其基本属性 ，但是可以改变诸如提供服务的相关说明等合同内容。
--单方面撤销合同的权利
签订合同的权力机关有权提前撤销合同（然而必须向项目实施者提供补偿）。
--要求继续服务的权利
行政合同中的操作方（编者按：企业方）不能拖延履行合同规定的义务，即便合同 授予机关限定了合同期限。在租借或租赁合约的情况中，操作方需要承担与公共服 务供应有关的义务，即便超出了合同所规定的（例如增加投资满足增长的需求，或 采用新技术）。
二，法律赋予对操作方的保护条款
1，操作者恢复“同等财务地位”的权利
在特定情景下，操作者受合同所赋予的“同等财务地位”权利的保护。例如，当合 同授予机关强制实行单方面修改时，必须同时调整合同安排的有关财务条款，以便 操作者的（经济地位）不会坏于从前（例如，如果合同授予机关需要更高水平的公 共服务，它可能就要同时允许较高的收费标准）。在法国，有关恢复操作者“同等 财务地位”的特定条款构成了合同的重要组成部分，在其他民法国家中也有相应规 定，包括：
o独断条款。当合同授予机关给操作者造成利润率下降而不终止合同时，需要给予 其救济。“独断条款”（法语Fait du prince）下的救济适用于下列情况：
§合同授予机关的行为对操作者构成不利影响，如果合同终结，后果不可预知 ；
§合同授予机关的行为超出合同范围（否则，其行为仅仅会带来合同的如期结 束）；而且
§合同授予机关采取的行动必须指向特定操作者（政府机关对所有企业采取的 普遍性决策不由“独断条款”管辖，但是他们应当按照“缺乏预见原则”给予企业 操作者以补偿或涨价；如下文所述）。
o“缺乏预见条款”（法语Imprévision）。操作者有资格因经济环境中巨大、不可 预知的变化带来的财务困境获得赔偿，以便合同的执行不会遭遇财务危机。根据“ 缺乏预见条款”可能发生赔偿的情况包括货币贬值、行政机关做出的合同条款规定 之外的价格控制行为，或者工作时间的缩减带来的劳动力价格上涨等。这些不利经 济环境带来的影响必须不是针对性的，而且超出根据合同可以预见的所有界限。给 予操作者的赔偿并不等于对其造成的所有损失或损害（作为一个指导性原则，有行 政条例规定，合同授予行政机关要承担所有损失的90%）。
o意外限制（法语Sujétions Imprévues）-如发生不可预料的原材料（涨价）等状 况，使建设工程和/或服务提供变得更加成本高昂，操作机构有资格获得补偿。
2，不可抗力
发生不可预知而且不可控制的事项，导致合同客观上无法执行的时候，项目实施操作机构（公司）可以免于履行合同义务。例如，某化工厂排污造成项目唯一供水来源遭到污染，可以视作不可抗力，自然现象例如飓风和干旱等也可以视作不可抗力。
政府可能希望将这些包括在合同条款的安排当中，当这些是该国背景法律的组成部分时，可能并不需要在合同条款加以列举。但是仅仅借助法律背景条款可能会有问题和麻烦，因为有些法条往往是模棱两可的，例如法理上如何恢复合同中的“同等财务地位”，“同等财务地位”究竟何意，就很不清晰。
通常，在合同中采用一项背景性行政法条款作为原则，并明确写明如何实施该条款，这种做法是很有效的。但是，改变或者凌驾于行政法条原则之上可能是合法的，也可能是不合法的--需要有关部门进行核查。例如，彻底取消行政机关要求单方面改变服务标准的权利就是不可能的。在法国，法律不允许任何凌驾于行政机关可以单方面取消合同的权利之上的做法。一些国家的民法典也包含强制公告期，在合同期终止前不允许回避或凌驾其上。
附原文：
http://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/
Key Issues in Civil Law Systems That May Impact PPP Projects
Rights of contracting authority that may override contractual provisions
Protections of Operator implied by law
Other Civil Law rules that can impact PPP arrangements
In many civil law countries a separate administrative law governs PPP arrangements.It is important to seek local legal advice to check whether these rules apply in a particular civil system. It is also important to note that in a civil law jurisdiction unless the contract specifies that the parties have agreed to arbitration the contract will be enforced by the administrative courts. Some of the key administrative rules that apply to delegated management arrangements are listed below.[1]
Rights of contracting authority that may override contractual provisions
-Right of unilateral modification
The contracting authority may as in France have the right to modify aspects of the contract unilaterally when it deems the change to be in the public interest. The contracting authority does not have the right to change the contract’s financial provisions or its fundamental nature but it can change such aspects as the specification of the service to be provided.
-Right of unilateral cancellation
The contracting authority has the right to cancel the contract early (although it must compensate the operator).
-Right to continuity of service
The operator in an administrative contract may not suspend the execution of its obligations under the contract even if the contracting authority breaches the contract. Under a concession or affermage-lease the operator is deemed to assume duties relating to operating a public service even beyond those included in the contract (such as investing to address increasing demand or adapting to new technologies).
Protections of operator implied by law
Operator’s right to financial equilibrium
The operator is protected in certain circumstances by the right to have the “financial equilibrium” of the contract preserved. For example when the contracting authority imposes a unilateral modification it must also adjust the financial terms of the arrangement so that the operator is not worse off (for example if the contracting authority required higher service standards it might also have to allow a higher tariff). Particular doctrines that form part of the operator’s right to “financial equilibrium” in France which have counterparts in other civil law countries include:
o Fait du prince. Relief is granted when the contracting authority has caused the operator’s profits to decrease without breaching the contract. Relief under fait du prince requires the following conditions:
§ the contracting authority’s action has adversely affected the operator and was unforeseeable when the contract was concluded;
§ the contracting authority’s action is beyond the scope of the contract (otherwise the action would merely constitute a breach of the contract); and
§ the action taken by the contracting authority must be specific to the operator (general decisions concerning all enterprises are not considered as fait du prince but they may give rise to damages on the basis of the imprévision principle; see below).
o Imprévision. The operator is entitled to compensation for financial difficulties arising from large and unforeseen changes in economic conditions that render execution of the agreement financially hazardous. Examples of possible compensation events under imprévision include a major devaluation price control decided by an authority other than the contracting authority or a reduction in working hours that increases labor costs. The adverse economic impact of these events must not only be exceptional but beyond all limits foreseen by the contract. The operator’s compensation is not equal to the total losses or damages incurred (an administrative circular provides for the administration to bear 90 percent of the losses as an indicative rule).
o Sujétions Imprévues – The operator is entitled to compensation for unexpected material conditions that make construction and/ or operations more costly.
Force majeure
Unpredictable and uncontrollable events that render the performance of the contract materially impossible exonerate the operator from its obligations. For example a spill from a chemical factory causing permanent pollution of the only water source would be considered force majeure. Natural phenomena such as hurricanes and droughts may also be considered force majeure.
Governments may wish to include these rules in the arrangement and when they are part of the background law it may not be necessary to repeat them in the contract. But relying on just the background rules is problematic because the rules are sometimes ambiguous. For example the jurisprudence on restoring the “financial equilibrium” of the contract is not clear on what “financial equilibrium” really means.
A contract that takes a background administrative law principle and spells out exactly how it is to be applied will generally be effective. But changing or overriding an administrative law principle may or may not be legally possible—that would need to be checked. For example it may not be possible to completely remove the ability of a contracting authority to unilaterally change service standards. In France the law makes void any attempt to override the contracting authority’s ability to unilaterally cancel a contract. Some civil law codes also contain mandatory notice periods before termination for breach of contract that cannot be avoided or overridden.
