| 關 鍵 詞： |
司法院大法官審理案件法；大法官解釋；不受理決議；憲法法庭；法庭判決；不受理裁定；案件審理時程；選案裁量權制度；多數意見主筆制度 |
| 中文摘要： |
司法院於 2013 年提交立法院審議中的司法院大法官審理案件法修正草案，對於解釋制度形式上重大變革，即是解釋制度司法化之內涵，以及為達成此目標所為之相關改革。本文乃由制度面向出發，探討憲法解釋之形成與革新問題，論述主軸與內容有三：首先，檢討我國現制：回顧檢視現行大法官釋憲實務之特色與問題。其次，探究德國法制與實務：論述德國聯邦憲法法院裁判之形式與組構。再者，研析我國制度革新內容：闡明 2013 年版修正草案以大法官憲法解釋裁判化為改革目標之制度設計，所具體呈現憲法解釋的裁判化改革內容，釋義分析草案相關條文。本文認為，2013 年版修正草案對於案件審理之流程與期限、裁判書格式，採行多數意見大法官主筆顯名制的裁判書撰寫，規範密度與範圍已然超越德國聯邦憲法法院法對於憲法訴訟案件審理與裁判之規制內涵，原則上甚為完善案件審理之程序面向，符合大法官憲法解釋維護客觀合憲秩序之本質和功能，提升形成裁判過程公信力，增進案件審理之效能，整體上誠值肯定。惟新制革新內容之功效，仍須仰賴新法通過施行後，觀察實踐面向之實務運作，始能深入檢證與評估。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Constitutional Interpretation Procedure ACT；Interpretations of the Grand Justices of the Constitutional Court；a dismissed petition；Constitutional Court；Court Judgments and Decisions；judgment of dismissal；case hearing timeline；writ of certiorari；majority opinion delivered by the court |
| 英文摘要： |
The Legislative Yuan will review amendments of the Act of Governing the Decisions of the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan submitted by the Judicial Yuan in 2013, which contain significant reforms on the interpretational proceures, aiming at elucidating the details of relevant institutional reforms on judicialization of interpretation proceedings. This paper explores the formation of and reforms on the Constituional Interpretaions from a systematic perspective. Sepcifically, this paper addresses the following three major themes: (1) evaluation of the current proceedings includ reviews of existing features and problems of practices of the Constitutional Interpretation by the Grand Justices, (2) analyses of legal affairs and practices in Germany to discuss the formation and structure of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany and its judgments and decisions, and (3) examination of the new contents of the institutional reforms to illustrate the draft amendments submitted in 2013 including goals and designs of the reforms on the judicialization of the Constitutional Interpretation by the Grand Justices. This paper argues that the draft amendments submitted in 2013 has surpassed the procedure and content of case review and judgments of the constitutional litigation carried out by the Federal Consitituional Court of Germany as the amendments on case hearing timeline, and format of written delivery of judgments and decisions will adopt the majority opinion delivered by the Grand Jusitices with names displayed. Thereby, in principle, the specifications and scopes included in the draft amendeds can be considered a fitting step towards a positive direction in terms of case hearing and procedure as they uphold the objectivity and functionality of the Constitutional Interpreation by the Grand Justices, upgrade the credibility of judgment procedure, and improve the efficiency of case hearing. This paper also indicates that the effectivenss and practices of those amendments will require further assessment and e valuation after the enactment of reforms.
|
| 目 次： |
前言
壹、檢討現制：大法官釋憲實務的特色與問題
一、現行法未明定解釋呈現方式
二、程序受理的實體決定為「解釋」，程序不受理者為「決議」
三、理由書未予區分程序與實體
四、93 年迄今大法官個別意見書蓬勃發展
五、解釋件數逐年降低
六、小結
貳、諦視德國：聯邦憲法法院裁判的形成與內容
一、聯邦憲法法院審判庭裁判概述
二、程序裁判、實體裁判與裁判形式
三、法規違憲審查裁判的格式與組構
（一）裁判主文
（二）裁判理由
（三）裁判要旨
四、不同意見書
參、展望新猷：憲法解釋的裁判化革新
一、法庭裁決形式與選案制度
二、案件審理流程與裁判時程：受理與否之程序審查與法庭評決、裁判意見之提出與審理期限
三、裁判書形成與格式
（一）判決主文：判決結果及形成判決之要旨，並得諭知執行機關、執行種類及方法
（二）判決理由：受理依據、同意主文之大法官人數、主筆大法官依判決要旨所提法庭之綜合理由
四、承辦及主筆大法官、多數意見主筆制與個別意見書的問題
（一）承辦大法官與主筆大法官的定義、角色與區分
（二）法庭綜合理由的形成與協同意見的整合
（三）大法官個別意見書提出的時間
肆、結語：從解釋到裁判書的變革
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|