查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 裁罰性不利處分vs.非裁罰性不利處分--兼評臺北高等行政法院九十九年度訴字第一五二九號判決=Adverse Actions of Punitive Nature vs. Adverse Actions of Non-punitive Nature |
---|---|
作者 | 林明昕; | 書刊名 | 興大法學 |
卷期 | 17 2015.05[民104.05] |
頁次 | 頁1-30 |
分類號 | 588.13 |
關鍵詞 | 行政罰法; 其他種類行政罰; 裁罰性不利處分; 非裁罰性不利處分; 有責性; 非難; 國家保護義務; 行政管制; Administrative Penalty Act; Other types of administrative penalties; Adverse actions of punitive nature; Adverse actions of non-punitive nature; Responsibility; Reprehension; State obligations to protect human rights; Administrative supervision; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 在我國現行法制中,行政機關就具體個案依法對人民所為之不利處分,究係裁罰性質,抑或非裁罰性質,以致於是否屬於行政罰法第1條及第2條所稱之「其他種類行政罰」,而有該法之適用,始終是實務上高度爭議的問題。職是,本文藉由對相關學說與實務的評析,整理若干有關裁罰性與非裁罰性不利處分之區別判斷的原則,並進而基於憲法基本權利理論中之國家保護義務的觀點,提出不利處分之性質,以非裁罰性為原則,裁罰性為例外的主張,建議相關問題之判斷,寧從「非裁罰性不利處分」優先推定的角度出發;只有在立法者已清楚表明,抑或法規範之客觀立法意旨顯然無疑的情形下,始能推翻推定,例外承認系爭不利處分具「裁罰性質」,為依法應適用行政罰法的其他種類行政罰。 |
英文摘要 | It remains a controversial practice whether an adverse action tak-en by administrative agencies is of punitive or non-punitive nature and thus belongs to “other types of administrative penalties” provided by Articles 1 and 2 of the Administrative Penalty Act. This paper there-fore describes multiple rationales of distinction between punitive and non-punitive actions, and argues for a presumption of non-punitiveness from the constitutional perspective of state obligations to protect human rights. Namely, punitive actions are exceptionally rec-ognized as other types of administrative penalties under statutory pro-visions or the objective meaning thereof. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。