法學期刊.
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 公有文化資產出租民間的正當性爭論及中央立法界限(The Debate of Legitimacy and the Central Cultural Legislative Boundaries about Rent of the Public Cultural Assets)
編著譯者: 王服清
出版日期: 2016.12
刊登出處: 台灣/科技法律評析第 9 期 /1-56 頁
頁  數: 56 點閱次數: 1105
下載點數: 224 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 國立高雄科技大學科技法律研究所 授權者指定不分配權利金給作者)
關 鍵 詞: 文化資產保存法公有文化資產公有文化資產出租正當性爭論中央立法界限
中文摘要: 自從 2016 年 07 月 27 日增訂文化資產保存法第 102 條規定之後,除了各機關應依促進民間參與公共建設法、政府採購法、國有財產法等相關法規外,該增訂條文增添另一種的公私協力方式:「公有文化資產出租」,可謂創舉。然而,在增訂文化資產保存法第 102 條之前,公有文化資產是否可以出租之正當性,事實上早已有一些爭論。儘管增訂文化資產保存法第 102 條更為鞏固公有文化資產出租之合法性,仍存有一些問題,值得進一步討論。另外,增訂文化資產保存法第 102 條規定是否是完全屬於中央立法並執行之的事項?如否,則新增訂的第102 條第2 項:「其相關辦法由中央主管機關定之」,是否同時也會侵害到地方自治事項?2016 年 07 月 27 日新修訂的文化資產保存法要求過多的「由中央主管機關定之」,乃彰顯出充斥中央立法專屬權,因此實際上地方自治團體更深化淪為「受委辦機關」之地位。本文主張地方自治團體也應該在委辦事項上仍得享有自行訂定自治條例或對外生效之委辦規則權限,始為正論。
英文關鍵詞: The Law on the Preservation of Cultural AssetsPublic Cultural AssetsRent of the Public Cultural AssetsDebate of LegitimacyCentral Legislative Boundaries
英文摘要: Since the addition of the provision of Article 102 on July 27, 2016 to the Law on the Preservation of Cultural Assets, except for the Government shall apply the Laws on the Promoting Civil Participation in Public Construction, Government Procurement and State Property, this supplementary provision is another type of public and private cooperation: “Rent of the Public Cultural Assets” and can be described as pioneering. However, before the addition of the provision of Article 102 to the Law on the Preservation of Cultural Assets, there has been in fact already some controversies as to whether the public cultural assets can be rented. Although the already addition of the provision of Article 102 to the Law on the Preservation of Cultural Assets is more effective in consolidating the legality of public cultural assets, there are still some problems that merit further discussion. In addition, the addition of the provision of Article 102 to the Law on the Preservation of Cultural Assets stipulates whether it is a matter that is entirely in the central legislation and is implemented. If not, then the new Article 102 pararapf 2: “by the relevant measures which the central authorities set”, whether it will also infringe the matters of the local autonomy? The newly revised Law on the Preservation of Cultural Assets cultural assets preservation on July 27, 2016 is required for too much measures set up by the Central Authorities. It is a manifestation of the exclusive right of the Central Authorities. Therefore, in fact, the local autonom organizations have become more deeply reduced to status of “the commissioned organs”. This article advocates that such local autonom organizations should also still have to enter into the autonom rules and external valid commissioned regulations in the commissioned matter.
目  次: 壹、文化資產管理維護之公私協力
一、公私協力之方式
二、文化資產保存法之相關規定
貳、公有文化資產出租之正當性問題
一、背離「委託民間營運」之慣用方式
二、欠缺法律依據
三、不應做為交易或換取經濟利益之使用
四、財政部的辦法(法規命令之性質)不得牴觸文化資產保存法
五、應當排除「標租」之方式
參、2016 年 07 月 27 日增訂文化資產保存法第 102 條之問題
一、「承租」之用語問題
二、「租金」之用語問題
三、背離「委託經營管理契約」之模式
肆、文化資產保存法的中央立法界限問題
一、中央與地方的權限劃分問題
二、中央主管機關涉入地方自治之程度
伍、結論與建議
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
    返回功能列