| 關 鍵 詞： |
憲法訴訟；憲法訴訟法；行政訴訟；行政訴訟法；司法院大法官；行政法院；暫時權利保護；有效權利保護 |
| 中文摘要： |
行政法院在暫時權利保護審查程序中，若認為行政行為之法律依據違憲，是否應裁定停止訴訟程序，向司法院大法官聲請法規範憲法審查？本文之主旨，即在探討此一憲法訴訟與行政訴訟交錯領域之難題。本文「壹」以臺北高等行政法院的數則裁定為例，揭示本文之問題意識。接著，本文「貳」從憲法、司法院釋字第371號解釋以及憲法訴訟法之規定出發，說明司法院大法官乃是法律廢棄權之獨占者。其次，本文「參」指出，行政法院透過暫時權利保護程序，實現有效權利保護之憲法誡命。本文「肆」則分析行政法院在暫時權利保護程序中，若合理確信或懷疑行政行為之法律依據違憲，將陷入如何之兩難困境。針對行政法院面臨之兩難困境，本文「伍」提出解決之建議。最後，本文將研究心得總結於「陸」。依本文之研究結論，行政法院於暫時權利保護程序，若合理確信行政行為之法律依據違憲，除非該法律在本案程序並無適用之可能性，或是屬於依行政訴訟法第116條第3項聲請之案件，否則應裁定准許暫時權利保護之聲請。同時，此等對於「法官應受法律拘束」之偏離，必須在本案程序透過向司法院大法官聲請法規範憲法審查予以導正。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
constitutional litigation；Constitutional Court Procedure Act；administrative litigation；Code of Administrative Court Procedure；the Constitutional Court of the Judicial Yuan；administrative courts；preliminary relief；effective judicial protection |
| 英文摘要： |
If an administrative court concludes that the legal basis of administrative actions is unconstitutional in preliminary relief proceedings, should it suspend the proceedings and ask the Constitutional Court of the Judicial Yuan to review the constitutionality of statutes? The major purpose of the present study is to explore this difficult question in the overlapping area between constitutional and administrative litigation. The first part of this article reveals the problematic through several rulings of the Taipei High Administrative Court. The second part of this article explains that the Constitutional Court of the Judicial Yuan monopolizes the rejection competence for statutes according to the Constitution, the interpretation of the Judicial Interpretation No. 371 and the Constitutional Court Procedure Act. As observed in the third part of this article, administrative courts can fulfill the constitutional requirements for the effective judicial protection through preliminary relief proceedings. The fourth part of this paper analyzes two dilemmas that administrative courts will fall into if they strongly believe on reasonable grounds or suspect that the legal basis of administrative actions is unconstitutional in preliminary relief proceedings. Regarding the dilemmas encountered by administrative courts, the fifth part of this article proposes solutions. Finally, results of this research are summarized in the sixth part. In conclusion, if an administrative court is reasonably convinced that the legal basis of the administrative action is unconstitutional in preliminary relief proceedings, it should suspend the proceedings and ask the Constitutional Court of the Judicial Yuan to review the constitutionality of statutes. There are two exceptions: the statute is inapplicable in the principal proceedings, or the case is based on Paragraph 3 of Article 116 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure. The deviation from the principle “judges shall be bound by law” must be corrected by the petition to the Constitutional Court of the Judicial Yuan for the constitutional review of legislation in the principal proceedings.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
一、從兩件行政處分所涉之行政訴訟談起
二、問題之提出
三、本文之架構
貳、司法院大法官作為法律廢棄權之獨占者
一、法官之法律審查權與法律廢棄權
二、司法院大法官獨占法律廢棄權
三、法院聲請法規範憲法審查之要件
四、法院是否有聲請法規範憲法審查之義務？
參、行政法院作為暫時權利保護之提供者
一、「有效權利保護」憲法誡命下之暫時權利保護制度
二、行政法院對暫時權利保護聲請之實體審查
肆、行政法院的兩難困境
一、困境之一：當行政法院「合理確信」法律違憲
二、困境之二：當行政法院「懷疑」法律違憲
伍、兩難困境如何化解
一、行政法院之暫時性裁定（緊急處置）？
二、司法院大法官之暫時處分？
三、本文見解
陸、總結
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|