查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 論專利行政機關之司法權--以美國及大陸相關制度為比較對象=A Study of the Judicial Power Exercised within the Administrative Branch--Comparing the Respective Systems in the U.S. and P.R.C. |
---|---|
作者 | 謝祖松; Hsieh, Tsu-sung; |
期刊 | 銘傳大學法學論叢 |
出版日期 | 20141200 |
卷期 | 22 2014.12[民103.12] |
頁次 | 頁39-73 |
分類號 | 588 |
語文 | chi |
關鍵詞 | 權力分立; 行政法法官; 行政法官; 專利; 正當程序; 公正; 獨立; Separation of power; Administrative law judge; Administrative judge; Patent; Due process; Independence; Justice; |
中文摘要 | 我國憲法依「權力分立」原則明定五權之職分,因此,若在行政機關中行使司法權,似將違反權力分立原則,其審判之獨立性亦有疑慮。然而,從美國聯邦及州之行政機關中,得見「行政法法官」行使司法權,竟未損及「權力分立」原則。 本文主張就「專業」及「效率」兩優點,在專利領域應可考量設置美國專利商標局之「行政專利法官」。我國公平交易委員會類似美國聯邦貿易委員會,應可考量設置與美國聯邦貿易委員會行政法法官制度類似之美國國際貿易委員會之行政法法官制度,以竟其功。 自行政機關中行使司法權,將衝擊現有法制架構中之訴願體系,故考量是否將行政專利法官設置於經濟部智慧財產局內,或經濟部訴願審議委員會內,採對現有法制架構中之訴願體系衝擊較小者,應以後者為宜。至於考量是否將行政法法官設置於公平交易委員會之上訴機關行政院訴願會,或於公平交易委員會內,亦應以後者為宜。 現行大陸知識產權局之司法權已超越美國專利商標局之行政專利法官,亦超過國際貿易委員會之行政法法官。修法後,應等同法院之法官職權。但預期此現象應隨其司法能量日益擴大後,逐漸移轉至司法關機關處理,甚或形成類似前述美國行政機關之行政法法官或行政專利法官之制度,亦不無可能。 在「權力分立」原則中,「獨立」僅為「公正」之下位概念,若實質上可達公正之結果,不完全獨立之法官或行政官員作業應予理解與接受,換言之,若其行使行政機關之司法權之公正性已依法建立,則應肯定其機制及價值。 |
英文摘要 | In Pursuance of the “Separation of Power” doctrine depicted in the Constitution of the Republic of China, there are five distinct branches to form the government. Accordingly, if the executive branch is exercising judicial power, it is an obvious violation to the doctrine thereof. However, the existence of Administrative Law Judges in both federal and state administrative branches in the United States does not regarded as jeopardizing said doctrine. In addition, the Intellectual Property Office in mainland China are exercising judicial power as well, although it is conducted by executive officers rather than Administrative Law Judges. Therefore, it is worthwhile to conduct a study to reveal the infrastructure of these related systems. This article suggests that, judging by the “profession” and “efficiency”, we should consider to establish the Administrative Patent Judge to exercise selective judicial power in the Intellectual Property Office or the Appeal Committee of Ministry of Economic Affairs, such that people would be able to redress the grievances is the administrative branch in a timely manner. Further, we would also consider establish the Administrative Law Judge in the Fair Trade Committee based on the same reason. The rationale of this mechanism is that “independence” and “justice” are both underlying elements of “Separation of Power”, but these two are not mutual exclusive. So, if the judicial power exercised in the administrative branch can provide same level of justice, it is not necessary to mandate these two to be independent to each other. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。