| 關 鍵 詞： |
專家參與；判斷餘地；授權規範；司法事後審查 |
| 中文摘要： |
有別於國內論著多以各別行政法領域所涉及的判斷餘地類型為題，本文關懷重點則在於以專家參與合議制組織之行政決定的判斷餘地類型。特別是實務上我國行政部門與立法部門甚為偏愛各種由學者專家或利益代表組成委員會的組織模式，彷彿藉此即可博得專業行政或立法的美名。更有甚者，行政法院實務上亦不無逕以由委員會作成決定，即肯認具有一定判斷餘地的（錯誤）刻板印象，而無視於我國行政實務上過度濫用委員會的問題。如此一來，容易陷入國家公權力同時卸責於專家參與行政決定，而人民卻難以主張權利救濟之困境。因此有必要從立法、行政乃至於司法等三權部門中，分別建構出專家參與的適當憲法要求與評價。
本文旨在指出，立法者必須肩負起在規範授權理論下，具體劃定專家或專業人士參與的類型、程度與具體要求的任務，如此方得肯認此一專家參與之行政決定享有判斷餘地可言；而行政則必須依法組成此種組織模式，在法定程序要求下作成決定，而司法機關則是事後審查此一立法所要求的組織與程序，是否於個案中有切實被遵守。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Expert’s Participation of Public Affairs；Margin of Appreciation；Authorizing Laws；Ex Post Judicial Review |
| 英文摘要： |
Most of the articles in Taiwan focus on the margin of appreciation of the decisionmakers in different areas of the administrative law. This article takes a different approach and focuses on the different types of margin of appreciation of the commissions whose decisions are made by the experts. In practice, the administration and the legislators prefer to establish various commissions comprised of scholars, experts or persons representing different interest groups. It seems to be that by setting up these commissions, the legislation and the administrative decisions would be viewed as decisions made by experts. Furthermore, many decisions by the administrative courts show that there seems to be an incorrect stereotype that any decisions by a commission should not be reviewed by the court due to the commission’s margin of appreciation. The courts didn‘t notice the overuse of commission decision making by the administration. This would result in a situation where the state power escape its responsibili ties while the people can’t seek remedy from the courts when their rights are infringed by the administrative agencies. Therefore, it is necessary to establish the proper framework for the experts to take part in public affairs from the perspective of legislation, administration and judicial power to comply with the constitutional demand. The purpose of this article is to point out that under the theory of normative authorisation, the legislators have the responsibility to specifically regulate the types of and the extent to which any experts or professions may participate in any administrative decision making process, and the specific goals of such participation. Only when there’re such laws, we may recognize the existence of the administrative discretion of the administrative decision made by the experts. The administrative decision also need to be made by the commission organized by the laws and following the procedures required by the laws. When reviewing the administrative decisions, the courts need to review whether the commission is lawfully organized and whether the legal procedures are closely followed.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、問題提出、範圍界定與論述步驟
貳、行政法院裁判整理與初步分析
一、最高行政法院判決彙整
二、由判決所浮現的待解問題
參、專家參與行政決定
一、專家參與國家意志形成之必要性與危機
二、專家參與國家意志形成的各種模式
（一）專家之概念
（二）專家參與之形式
三、得肯認具有判斷餘地之專家參與
肆、授權規範與委員會組織
一、規範授權的要求
二、授權規範之探求–以委員會組織為例
（一）規範授權與法律保留原則
（二）專家參與委員會決定之授權規範內容
（三）行政法院裁判的檢視
伍、司法事後控制（審查）模式
一、審查權限、審查標準與審查強度
二、行政法院作為事後審查法院
三、權衡模式的司法審查
四、專家參與委員會決定的司法審查
（一）專家參與委員會決定的司法審查
（二）行政法院裁判的檢視
陸、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|