• 社群分享
論著名稱: 違法行為跨越新舊法期間法律適用之探討-評院臺訴字第 1020146733 號行政院決定書(Discuss about Jurisdiction of Violation Across the Old and New Law-Comment about No.1020146733 Appeal Decision of the Executive Yuan Taiwans)
編著譯者: 蔡震榮章惠傑
出版日期: 2014.07
刊登出處: 台灣/法學叢刊第 59 卷 第 3 期 /1-22 頁
頁  數: 22 點閱次數: 1317
下載點數: 88 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 章惠傑
關 鍵 詞: 狀態犯與繼續犯聯合行為獨占事業競爭關係情節重大
中文摘要: 訴願人麥寮汽電與其他 9 家民營電廠(IPP)業者,為拒絕臺電公司要求調降購售電合約(PPA)費率之合意,便聯合採「以拖待變」策略,達成換約目的。經原處分機關公平交易委員會依公平交易法第 41 條第 2 項暨違反公平交易法第十條及第十四條情節重大案件之裁處罰鍰計算辦法第 4、5、6、7 條規定,分別處以數額不等之罰鍰並命渠等自本處分書送達之次日起,應立即停止前項違法行為。訴願人提起訴願後,本案行政院訴願決定撤銷罰鍰部分。並認為,該違法行為期間歷經新舊法時期,應考量行為人於舊法時期之利益及新法提高罰鍰額度之可預見性;又參酌最高行政法院 98 年度判字第 419 號判決意旨,可依新舊法不同階段予以裁處;再者,原處分機關並未究明受處分 IPP 業者履行契約利潤或違規不法利益之期間及範圍,即逕依固定百分比裁處鉅額罰鍰,難認符行政罰法第 18 條及情節重大案件裁處罰鍰辦法第 6 條之意旨。
公平會第二次處分認為,受處分人聯合其他 IPP 業者,違法行為於 97 年 8 月 21 日起至 101 年 10 月間為止持續進行中,為繼續犯。因此,本案即無行政罰法第 5 條適用之餘地,與最高行政法院 98 年度判字第 419 號判決無絕對關聯,即應適用 100 年 11 月 23 日修正公平交易法第 41 條第 2 項提高罰鍰上限之規定,不得將新、舊法時期不同之法律割裂適用。但為遵從行政院訴願決定,希望公平會適度考量舊法利益,故公平會第二次處分乃依舊法酌減舊法時期罰鍰 2,500 萬元,並就各家電廠一律減除 500 萬元。針對此部分行政院第二次訴願決定再次撤銷前述決定,而認為原處分機關減除 500 萬元,並未依違法期間之事實,考量各家電廠不同之處,核與行政罰法第 18 條及公平交易法施行細則第 36 條規定不符,爰將原處分撤銷。
公平會第二次決定錯誤之造成,實係源自於行政院第一次決定書所提到,「…不得以違章行為繼續至新法施行時,即可將行為人舊法期間適用舊法之利益置而不論,…」,其並未明示考量時,究應如何適用舊法或新法,以致誤導公平交易委員會第二次重為處分時,將被處分人於舊法期間可處之最高 2,500 萬元罰鍰利益部分予以全數刪除,並就被處分人已為損害補救措施,各再酌減 500 萬元。行政院第二次訴願決定,僅就此部分提出質疑,認公平會未依行政罰法第 18 條及公平交易法第 36 條考量。本文認為,本案行政院訴願決定是有瑕疵的,公平會第一次作出之處分,本已有考量各家電廠差異性而符合行政罰法第 18 條及公平交易法第 36 條,卻因行政院訴願決定關係,而誤導決定之方向。
英文關鍵詞: state offense and continuous crimeconcerted actionmonopoly enterprisecompetitive relationshipepisodes of major
英文摘要: An administrative appellant Mailiao steam power plant with the other nine private (IPP) industry, to reject requests Taiwan power company cut power purchase agreement (PPA) rates are desirable, they jointly adopted “in order to delay change” strategy to achieve change approximately purposes. Original disciplinary agency Fair Trade Commission in accordance Fair Trade Act Art. 41.2 cum violation of the Fair Trade Act Art.10 and 14 episode of major cases fined computing methods the Art. 4, 5, 6, 7. Respectively punishable by fines and amounts ranging from life drains from the day the notice of punishment since the preceding paragraph shall immediately cease violations. After administrative appellant filed an appeal, the case of the Executive Yuan decided to withdraw the appeal fines section. And that, after the old law violations during the period, the perpetrator should be considered to improve the predictability of fines in the amount of the interest period of the old law and the new law; refer to Supreme Administrative Court 98 years sentenced to tenor judgment word No. 419, available according to old methods at different stages to be Tribunal; Moreover, the original disciplinary agency did not investigate Ming punished IPP industry to fulfill a contractual profit or irregularities during the illegal benefits and scope of that path according to a fixed percentage of the Tribunal huge fines, illegible character administrative Penalty Act Art. 18 episodes of major cases and ways to cut fined Art. 6 of the tenor.
Fair Trade Commission considers a second punishment, punishment of people in combination with other IPP industry, illegal acts in 97 years on August 21 until October last 101 years, ongoing, is continuous crime. Thus, the case that no leeway to apply to Art. 5 of Administrative Penalty Act, and on Taiwanese Year 98’s of Supreme Administrative Court adjudication word No. 419 judgment is no absolute correlation, which should be applicable for 100 years Nov. 23 amended the Fair Trade Act Art. 41.2 raise the upper limit of the fines provisions, not be different during from the old and new laws to separate the applicable law. However, in order to comply with the Executive Yuan appeals the decision, hope the Fair Trade Commission consideration of the modest of the old law advantage, the Fair Trade Commission second law sanctions are still reduce it during the old law fined 25 million dollars, and on each plant shall be deducted 5 million dollars. For this part of
the Executive Yuan decided to lift the second appeal the decision again, and that the original disciplinary agency minus 500 million, not in compliance with illegal during of the fact, taking into consideration the differences at each plant, inconsistent with the provisions Art. 18 of the Administrative Penalty Act and Art. 36 of the Enforcement Rules of the Fair Trade Act , the original punishment revoked.
The second decision errors caused by the Fair Trade Commission, Executive Yuan solid lines derived from the first mentioned in a written decision, “... violations may not continue to perform when the new law can be applied during the perpetrator old old law interest irrespective of the setting method, ... ”when it did not expressly consider, investigate how to apply the old law or the new law, the Fair Trade Commission that misleading when the second heavy punishment, punishment will be available for the period from the old law office the maximum fines interests of some 25 million dollars to be fully removed, and it was disciplined person has to remedy the damage, and then reduce it 5 million dollars each. Executive Yuan second appeal decision, only on this part of the question, not according to the Art.18 of the Administrative Punishment Act and Art. 36 of the Fair Trade Act considerations. This paper argues, the case of the Executive Yuan writen decision is flawed, Punishment for the first time made the Fair Trade Commission, the difference has to consider each plant and meet the Art.18 of the Administrative Penalty Act and Art. 36 of the Fair Trading Act, because of the Executive Yuan appeal decision relationship, and to mislead the direction of decisions.
目  次: 壹、前言
伍、公平會公處字第 102192 號處分書(2013/11/13)及行政院院臺訴字第 1030134118 號(第二次)決定書(2014/5/9)