頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 論地方法規之位階效力--地方制度法第三十條「中央法破也方法」之辨正=On the Level Effect of Local Law: Clarification of “State Law Takes Precedence over Local Law” on the Article 30 of the Local Government Act |
---|---|
作 者 | 詹鎮榮; | 書刊名 | 成大法學 |
卷 期 | 12 民95.12 |
頁 次 | 頁1-59 |
分類號 | 575.8 |
關鍵詞 | 中央與地方權限劃分; 地方自治制度性保障; 地方制度法; 地方立法權; 自治事項; 委辦事項; 法規競合; 法位階理論; 法位階效力; 法律先占理論; 中央法破地方法; 對自治立法之監督; 最高行政法院94年11月庭長法官聯席會議決議; The power partition between central government and local government; Local government law; The power of loacl legislation; Matter of self-government; Theory of legal levels; State law takes precedence over local law; State censorship on local legisla-tion; Resolution of the judge-council of the supreme administrative court on November 22, 2005; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 地方自治團體透過法規制訂權之行使,得以實現其「自我規劃」與「自我呈現」之目的。地方制度法分就地方任務屬性之不同,賦予地方自治團體得制訂自治條例、自治規則以及委辦規則之立法權限。在法規範位階理論基礎上,地方制度法第三十條建構了「中央法破地方法」之位階效力原則,規定地方法規牴觸中央或上位法規者無效。有鑑於地方自治權受憲法之制度性保障,地方自治團體在此範圍內享有自治立法高權,故在判斷地方法規是否牴觸中央或上位法規時,思考脈絡應有別於同一行政主體上、下位法規間位階關係之情形。在此,「地方自治權之保障」為認定地方法與中央法有無規範內容衝突時之關鍵斟酌因素。 本文參酌日本「法律先占理論」以及德國「聯邦法破邦法」之相關制度,就地方制度法第三十條之規定嘗試提出較細緻之思考路徑以及解釋基準,俾辨正其真正之規範意涵,並使地方自治權之保障以及全國法秩序統一性之維護兩者間得以獲得合乎規範意旨之調和。尤其就自治事項而言,應在中央法規框架性質以及類型獲得確認後,再據以判斷地方法規之實質規範內容是否與其具有一致性。規範要件抑或法律效果之外觀上單純不一致,無由作為認定地方自治法規牴觸中央或上位法規之唯一準據。毋寧,倘若地方自治法規之規範要件或效果形塑尚屬在中央法規所設定框架之限度內者,則即使罰則較中央法規為嚴苛,抑或給付標準較中央法規為低者,仍應認為係屬地方自治團體因地制宜之自治權行使結果,而應予以尊重與保障,尚不得逕謂牴觸中央法規而無效。 |
英文摘要 | Local self-government is able to realize the goal of self programming and profiling by applying the power of local legislation. According to the difference of local tasks the local government law provides the local self-government authority of ordinance and regulations. The Article 30 of the Local Government Act defines the level effect of local law. The local ordinance and regulation are null and void in case when they contravene state law. According to the theory of Constitution the power of local legislation is ensured by the institutional guarantees. Whether the local ordinance and regulation contravene state Jaw or not is judged on the base of local self-government. This article tries to apply the train of thoughts and the base of interpretation about the Article 30 of the Local Government Act by way of comparing it with the theory of national law priority from Japan and the principle of federal law precedence from Germany. The two goals of this research are as followed: To clarify the meaning of the Article 30 of the Local Government Act and to consort the guarantees of local self-Government with unity of national laws. In field of the matter of self-Government the unity between local law and state law must be considered after ensuring that the state law has the character of frames. Wording of law is not allowed to be the only measure of judgment. Even if there are difference between local law and state law, for example when Administrative fine in local law is higher than it in state law, it doesn’t mean that local law contravenes state law. When state law belongs to “ational minimum” he local self-government is allowed to make more intense regulation, which could be treated as the expression of local self-government. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。