查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 論違反土地管轄行政處分所衍生之法律問題--以德國法及學說為借鏡=Problems of the Administrative Act Issued Beyond the Territorial Competence--Referred to the German Laws and Theories |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 蔡志方; | 書刊名 | 成大法學 |
| 卷 期 | 5 2003.06[民92.06] |
| 頁 次 | 頁1-24 |
| 分類號 | 588.135 |
| 關鍵詞 | 越界處分; 土地管轄; 公法上無因管理; 情況裁決; Administrative act issued beyond the territorial competence; Territorial competence; Management without mandate (gestion d'affair) in public law (Geschaftsfuhrung ohne Auftrag im offentlichen Recht); Decision owing to special circumstance; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 絕對無權限機關所為之處分，應屬無效，我國行政程序法第一百十五條無適用之餘地。行政處分必須非無效或程序或形式之暇慈已經補正或治癒者，始有本條之適用。本條規定要件中之「有管轄權之機關如就該事件仍應為相同之處分時」，相較於德國聯邦行政程序法第四十六條之新規定內容「如就該事件仍應為相同之處分時」，係屬規範上之「假設性要求」，除羈束處分之情形外，裁量分僅於「裁量收縮至零」之情形，始足當之。 行政程序法第一百十五條規定中所謂「原處分『無須撤銷』」，如屬強制性規定，法文似改為「原處分不得撤銷」。本條之規範目的若僅在排除處分之廢棄請求權，則其規制對象，應限於具有訴權之人，而法文應改為「原處分不得請求撤銷」。反之，本條之規範目的在於確保程序經濟，則其規制對象乃行政機關與行政法院，其法文應改為「原處分不得撤銷」，並應有其他配套措施，例如：創設有管轄權機關「嗣後追認」之制度，甚至將本條賦與「公法上無因管理」之法源基礎。再者，本條是否具有排除此種違法處分之國家賠償責任的法效，缺乏明文，易滋疑義。 行政程序法第一百十五條與同法其他規定間，基本上並無競合或排除關係，但與其他一般程序原則，例如程序失權原則間，即具有排斥性。行政機關如已認無管轄權者，即應將案件移送有管轄權之機關，並通知當事人，無本條之適用。行政機關因不知法規或是時之變更而喪失管轄權，而仍繼續處理事件並作處分時，有本條之適用。已取得繼續處理權者，無本條之適用。行政處分無效者，無本條之適用。行政處分違反程序或方式規定，未依同法第一百十四條第一項規定補正，且未於同條第二項規定之期限內補正，其仍得被撤銷。 本條適用於爭訟與非爭訟程序。在非爭訟程序，處分機關明知其並無土地管轄，但仍以為該管轄機關處理該事件之意思作為該處分，則得成立公法上之無因管理。本條屬於同法第一百十七條之特別規定。在爭訟程序，本條規定具有排除處分之廢棄請求權之作用，復另具有類似「情況決定」之機能。有關之機關或人民，對於適用本條之前提發生爭議，應准其請求該管行政法院確認該處分違法。但其訴訟種類係「無名之確認處分違法訴訟」。 |
| 英文摘要 | Abstract Article 115 of the Administrative Procedure Law（APL）of Republic of China（Taiwan）provides that the administrative act shall not be revoked only due to its destitution of a territorial competence, if the competence organ should issue an administrative act with same content, except it is null according to No.6 of Article 111 of the APL. This regulation should be confined. That is to say, exactly, an administrative act can be adapted to this provision only when it has not in the meanwhile suffered from other nullity causes according to the Article 111 and Paragraph 2 of Article 114 of the APL. Therefore, the effectiveness scope of Article 115 of APL is too wide, but it will be too narrow in comparison with the new revised Article 46 of German APL（Verwaltungsfahrensgesetz）. Because the latter provides not only the destitution of territorial competence, but also the forms and procedure defects of an administrative act with same content. Besides the effect provision of Article 115 is ambiguous and should be amended. And the provision of Article 115 is ambiguous and should be confined. That is to say, exactly, an administrative act can be adapted to this provision only when it has not in the meanwhile suffered form other nullity causes according to the Article 111 and Paragraph 2 of Article 114 of the APL. Therefore, the effectiveness scope of Article 46 of German APL（Verwaltungsfahrensgesetz）. Because the latter provides not only the destitution of territorial competence, but also the forms and procedure defects of an administrative act with same content. Besides, the effect provision of Article 115 is ambiguous and should be amended. And the provision of Article 115 is ambiguous and should be amended. And the provision of Article 115 is ambiguous and should be amended. And the provision will be much more effective and effective and should be amended. And the provision will be much more effective and economic in the administration functions if it can be combined with the Institution of Management without mandate（gestion d ' affair）in public law（Gesch aftsfhrung ohne Auftrag im offentlichen Recht）. The regulation of Article 115 of the APL will be a lex special or suigeneris to Article 117 of the APL, but a parallel stipulation to § 83 of the Administrative Appeal Law and § 198 of the Administrative Litigation Law concerning the "Decision owing to special circumstance". |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。