食品安全行政上法執行之合法性 – 以預防性下架措施為例

Abstract

現代食品安全事件之於法領域，具有高度複雜性。主管機關對於科學與生活基礎之作用關聯性掌握不足，而造成主觀與客觀事實認知上之差異。在現代風險社會概念下，一切不確定之風險，隨時有發生不可回復損害之可能。實務上存在著政府主管機關，對於行政管制措施和法執行之相對人(食品業者)以及對所欲保護之對象(消費者)間，有許多使用利益與權利之衡量問題存在，以及行政裁量與判斷餘地之不確定因素。對行政法而言，此種錯綜複雜之困境，意味著一種對其行政上法執行於法釋義核心之合法性與正當性之挑戰。\n「預防性下架」一詞，在理解上似乎是個通用性之名稱，然，並無明文於食安法之規範。惟，其涵蓋於食安法規範之不同之行政管制與法執行，確有其法規上之確認與定性之必要。至於應用「風險預防性原則」，適用於命下架行為之強制性管制或事實行為，不管是單純之命下架法執行或是所謂之預防性下架之行政措施，在法律效果上，均是對相對人之業者立即發生不利益管制之行政行為。\n就法律性質而言，預防性之行政行為，就立法之目的與規範體系之安排，本文將其區分為「危害防止」、「危險預防」、與「風險預防」三種預防性下架之類型，以利法規範客觀認知釐清和後續之認事用法依據；其不同類型化之預防性行政行為，在實際應用上各有不同之成立要件，對於日後之行政救濟途徑，亦會因此而有所不同。惟，食安法相關條文規定，卻無定義正確之意思解釋與適用範圍，故預防性下架之法執行其合法性與正當性不無疑義。

Modern food safety events are highly complicated in the field of law. The competent authorities have insufficient mastery of the relationship between science and the basis of life, resulting in differences on subjective and objective factual perception. Under the modern concept of risk society, all the risks of uncertainty may cause of irreversible damage at any possible time. In practice, there are government authority’s measures should be taked into consideration with the balance of personal interests and legal rights between the relative person (food industry) and the object (consumer) of the enforcement of administrative regulation and laws, as well as the uncertainty of the administrative discretion and the margin of appreciation. For administrative law, this complicated dilemma means a challenge to the legality and legitimacy of the implementation of its administrative law to the core of the interpretation of the law.\nThe term "precautionary withdrawal" seems to be a generic term in public understanding, but there is not clearly stated by the Food Safety and Sanitation Act. However, it covers the different administrative regulation and law enforcement of the Act, which is necessary for the confirmation and characterization of its issues on laws and regulations. As the "risk precautionary principle", which is applicable to the mandatory regulation or factual behavior act of the withdrawal, whether it is a simple excecution of the law enforcement for mendatory withdrawal or the so-called precautionary dithdrawal administrative measures, in the legal effect, is that the relative person`s business immediately occurrence of adversative control by the Administrative Act.\nAs far as the legal nature is concerned, the preventive administrative act, in terms of the purpose of the legislation and the arrangement of the normative system, was distinguished into the types of "harzard prevention", "danger prevention" and "risk prevention", three kinds of preventive frames, in order to facilitate the law to standardize the objective cognition and follow up the basis of recognition. In practical application, there are different requisite elements, and so as for the future administrative remedy channels will be different. However, the relevant provisions of the Food Safety Sanitation Act provided no definition of the correct meaning of interpretation and scope of application, so the precautionary withdrawal of the law enforcement and its legitimacy can’t be enacted without doubt.