頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 論大陸公司在臺灣之當事人能力--評釋最高法院八十九年臺上字第四六一號與八十九年臺上字第二八九號判決=The Capacity to be a Party of Mainland China Corporations in Taiwan |
---|---|
作 者 | 陸尚乾; | 書刊名 | 東吳法律學報 |
卷 期 | 15:1 2003.08[民92.08] |
頁 次 | 頁229-284 |
分類號 | 585.223 |
關鍵詞 | 國際私法; 區際私法; 超國界法律; 國際民事訴訟; 兩岸; 臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例; 外國公司; 大陸公司; 承認認許; 權利能力; 行為能力; 當事人能力; 訴訟能力; Private international law; Conflict of laws; Interregional conflict of laws; Transnational law; International civil litigation; Transnational corporations; Foreign company; Mainland china corporation; Recognition; Admission; Status; Legal personality; Capacity to be a party; Capacity to act; Capacity of corporations; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 隨著大陸與台灣民商交往的密切,區際法律衝突導致的法律問題接踵而至;其中大陸地區公司在台灣是否具備當事人能力即為諸多爭議之一。此問題受到現行法下外國公司如何在我國取得權利能力與當事人能力影響頗深;目前我國對外國公司的權利能力採取「特別認許原則」,儘管已有諸多學者為文呼籲盡速修法以符合國際公約與外國立法例的趨勢,但在此之前,依據我國現行民法總則施行法、公司法以及民事訴訟法等規定以及實務解釋來看,未經認許之外國公司仍無權利能力自無行為能力,僅視為非法人團體而例外的賦予當事人能力但無訴訟能力。此一侷限對大陸公司取得權利能力的影響,可由我國實務上最高法院兩則判決理由看出,最高法院認為未經許可之大陸公司不具有權利能力,甚且無法如同未經認許之外國公司一般以「非法人團體」的資格取得當事人能力。本文對此看法持保留態度,除對於外國或大陸公司的權利能力採取特別認許原則提出質疑,認為不僅造成與現實脫節且不符合現今衝突法的原則外;並認為兩岸人民關係條例對於大陸公司之權利能力與當事人能力的規範與其他法律對於外國公司權利能力的規定不盡相同,故解釋上,大陸公司在台灣之權利能力或當事人能力的取得自不必如同外國公司因為陳舊法令規定形成解釋上的困難或視外國公司「承認」與「認許」制度為同一所造成的曲解。在這樣的背景下,筆者以為大陸公司在台灣是否具當事人能力仍有很大的討論空間,實有研究之必要;同時藉由最高法院的兩則判決探討區際私法或衝突法(兩岸人民關係條例)在面臨兩岸法律衝突時應如何適用。 |
英文摘要 | With the civil and commercial communications between Taiwan and Mainland China are getting closely, the problems caused by “Interregional conflict of laws” occur variously. One of these disputes is whether a company registered in Mainland is qualified to file a suit in Taiwan (capacity to be a party) and the answer of this question is mostly influenced by the status of foreign company in Taiwan. Despite the calls for amending the “restricted recognition principle” in relative laws in order to follow the conventions and modern legislations. Foreign corporations do not have “legal personality” and “capacity to act” without being specific recognized, It has “capacity to be a party” only because it's a “de facto” legal person. Via two judgments made by the Supreme Court in Taiwan also show that Mainland China corporations do not have “capacity to be a party” without being recognized according to the Article 70 of the “ACT Governing Relations between Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area”. The author of this article has different opinions on this issue. Under such background, there are still rooms for discussion. Meanwhile this article will also discuss about how the “ACT Governing Relations between Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area” will be applied in the interregional conflict of laws. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。