| dc.contributor | 法律系 | |
| dc.creator (作者) | 詹鎮榮 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator (作者) | Chan, Chen-Jung | |
| dc.date (日期) | 2011-07 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 24-四月-2017 14:56:17 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 24-四月-2017 14:56:17 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 24-四月-2017 14:56:17 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/109175 | - |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 我國行政程序法第一百二十八條規定行政程序之重新進行制度，旨在調和法安定性原則與個案正義。根據文義，行政處分「於法定救濟期間經過後」，具有特定事由者，相對人或利害關係人得於法定之除斥期間內，向行政機關申請撤銷、廢止或變更之。本條雖係仿效德國行政程序法第五十一條規定而制定，然針對程序重新進行之標的，在文義上卻與德國所採行之「不具可爭訟性的」(unanfechtbar)行政處分不同，而使用行政處分「於法定救濟期間經過後」之用語。縱然如此，本文認為從立法沿革、整體文義及制度目的角度綜合觀察，在在皆指向我國行政程序法第一百二十八條所規定之程序標的，實與德國法規範相一致，均指概念內涵較廣之「不具可爭訟性之行政處分」。是以，人民得以根據行政程序法第一百二十八條申請行政程序重新進行之時機，除法定救濟期間經過未提起訴願或行政訴訟之外，尚包括已提起訴願或行政訴訟，且遭訴願決定機關駁回訴願決定，或行政法院駁回判決確定，甚至是合法捨棄行政救濟權之情形。其中，關於行政法院裁判上多數主張若容許人民於原處分經判決確定後，復申請行政程序之重新進行，將侵害到判決既判力之疑慮，本文認為基於兩者所涉及之標的不同，故並不至於發生。最後，從立法政策角度思考，為杜絕目前在法解釋及實務操作上所存之爭議，本文建議在未來修正行政程序法時，或可將第一百二十八條第一項之現行文字「行政處分於法定救濟期間經過後」修正為「不具可爭訟性之行政處分」，以符行政程序重新進行之制度旨趣。 | |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | The purpose of Article 128 of the Administrative Procedure Act (TAPA)-reopening the administrative proceedings-is to reconcile maintaining the stability of law against preserving justice of individual cases. Although Article 128 of the TAPA is modeled after Article 51 of the German Administrative Procedure Act (GAPA), the text of the two articles is not identical. Instead of allowing the reopening of administrative proceedings when an administrative decision becomes uncontestable (unanfechtbar), as the GAPA does, the TAPA states that the parties and interested persons of an administrative decision can petition to revoke and amend the decision when the statutory period for administrative/judicial review elapses.Despite the textual difference between the two provisions, this paper argues that, judging from the legislative history and the purpose of Article 128, it should be interpreted to have identical meaning as its German counterpart. In other words, people can invoke Article 128 not only when the statutory period elapses and they do not petition for administrative/judicial review, but also in cases where people do petition for administrative/judicial review but their petitions are rejected. Currently, most administrative courts do not adopt such interpretation; they are concerned that this interpretation will undermine the principle of ”res judicata”. However, this paper argues that because the subjects of administrative and judicial proceedings are different, the principle of res judicata should not be an issue of concern if the foregoing interpretation is adopted.astly, from legislative policy perspective, in order to resolve the current dispute regarding Article 128 of the TAPA, and to fulfill the purpose of reopening administrative proceedings, this paper suggests that the wordings of Article 128 should be amended to be identical to Article 51 of the GAPA (i.e., ”… when an administrative decision becomes incontestable (unanfechtbar)”). | |
| dc.format.extent | 2904974 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 東吳法律學報, 23(1), 95-133 | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 行政程序重新進行;行政處分形式存續力;不可爭力;法安定性原則;特殊訴訟程序;訴訟標的;判決確定力;再審之訴 | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | the reopening of administrative proceedings;non-appealability of administrative decisions;indefeasibility;principle of legal certainty;special judicial review procedure;res judicata;subject matter of an action | |
| dc.title (題名) | 行政程序重新進行之程序標的——以我國及德國行政法院相關裁判為中心 | zh_TW |
| dc.title.alternative (其他題名) | A Comparative Study of the Reopening of Administrative Proceedings in Taiwan and Germany | |
| dc.type (資料類型) | article | |
