法學期刊.
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 地方自治事項與委辦事項之委任及委託:以臺北市政府組織自治條例第二條第二項及第三項("Delegation" and "Mandate" of Local Governments on Self-governing Matters and Commissioned Matters: Featuring Sections 2 and 3 of Article 2 in the Self-government Ordinance of the Taipei Municipal Government)
編著譯者: 林明昕
出版日期: 2010.12
刊登出處: 台灣/國立臺灣大學法學論叢第 39 卷 第 4 期 /213-297 頁
頁  數: 85 點閱次數: 5316
下載點數: 340 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 國立臺灣大學法律學院
關 鍵 詞: 委任委託委辦事項團體權限機關權限地方自治自主組織權訴願管轄
中文摘要: 在我國行政法制中,近年來有關臺北市政府組織自治條例第 2 條第 2 項及第 3 項規定,每成學說與實務評釋的焦點;其中,臺北市政府及其所屬機關得否僅依系爭條項之概括授權,將中央法令既以指定之機關權限,全部或一部委任或委託其他機關執行,而造成管轄秩序之變動,則屬相關議論的重心。就此,本文即以德國法制之比較為方法,特別提出地方自治理論中的「自主組織權」概念;並在此一概念下,經重新詮釋「地方自治事項」與「地方委辦事項」、「委任」與「委託」,乃至「訴願管轄」等制度內涵後指出:在我國憲法及地方制度法保障地方自治團體之自主組織權的思考下,中央法令原則上僅得針對含臺北市在內的各地方自治團體,作所謂「團體權限」的安排,但無從進一步指定含臺北市政府及其所屬機關在內之各地方行政機關的「機關權限」;這些機關權限的問題,應由各地方自治團體憑其自主組織權,以個別之地方法規自行為具體之處理。準此,前開臺北市政府組織自治條例第 2 條第 2 項及第 3 項規定,有過度概括授權之弊,固毋庸置疑;惟其假設臺北市政府及其所屬機關之機關權限,係直接來自中央法令之指定,尤屬一項虛擬的前提。既然,系爭條文的立法出發點其實並不存在,則其規範本身,也毫無意義。換言之,這兩項爭議的規定,寧及早廢止為宜。
英文關鍵詞: delegationmandatecommissioned matterscompetence of executive bodycompetence of administrative agencylocal self-governmentself-organizing powerjurisdiction of administrative appeal
英文摘要: Sections 2 and 3 of Article 2 in the Self-government Ordinance of the Taipei Municipal Government have raised many critics in recent years. In particular, whether Taipei Municipal Government and its subordinated agencies may, according to the two sections at issue, wholly or partly delegate or mandate other administrative agencies to execute their competence assigned by central statutes and regulations is the most controversial case among all. On a comparative law basis, this article will first introduce German law on the concept of “self-organizing power” within theories of local self-government context. Upon such cognition, this article will then illustrate the differences between “self-governing matters” and “commissioned matters”, “delegation” and “mandate” as well as the institutional content of “jurisdiction of administrative appeal” respectively. Furthermore, considering the protection of self-organizing power in Taiwanese Constitution and Local Government Act, the study shows that central statutes and regulations in principle may only allocate “competence of executive body” to local self-governing body such as Taipei Municipality, instead of assigning “competence of administrative agency.” It may be otherwise considered, based on the self-organizing power of local self-governing body, through local ordinances and regulations. Therefore, the article argues that though the two sections indeed have overly generalized its authorization. Since the presumption that the competence of administrative agency held by Taipei Municipal Government and its subordinated agencies is directly assigned from central statutes and regulations was null at the very beginning, these two sections are said to be worthless accordingly. In other words, these two disputing regulations would be better abolished as soon as possible.
目  次: 壹、問題提起
貳、德國法制之觀察
一、地方建制
二、「自治事項」與「委辦事項」
三、「權限授與」與「權限代理」
四、訴願管轄
五、觀察總結
參、我國法制之檢討
一、「委任」及「委託」
二、中央與地方權限分配下之「委任」及「委託」
三、附論:訴願管轄 vs.「自治事項」與「委辦事項」之區分
肆、回顧與展望
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
    返回功能列