公法契約爭議仲裁判斷之撤銷訴訟——以管轄法院和法院審理基準為中心

Arbitrability of Public Contract Disputes and Reviews by Administrative Courts - An Analysis of Jurisdiction and Review Criteria

本文針對公法契約爭議是否具有客觀仲裁容許性？且若該爭議仲裁後仍有仲裁判斷撤銷訴訟，是否由行政法院為審判？以及該法院如何於審查後並應予撤銷？等實務、學理未聚焦關注而待釐清課題為探討。本文比較德國和我國法制之分析研究後認為，在行政機關對爭訟標的具有法定處分權限內得於公法契約中約定仲裁條款，此仲裁條款亦屬公法契約性質，是故公法契約之爭議雖具有仲裁容許性，但該仲裁如同公法契約仍有其程序法和實體法之界限。且其仲裁判斷後之撤銷訴訟，屬公法爭議性質，應由高等行政法院管轄，並應自爭訟標的所關連系爭行政法實體法加以審查監督。是依仲裁法第三十八條和第四十條有關撤銷仲裁判斷之規定，仲裁協議之有效性、範圍，與仲裁判斷之適法結果乃兩道控制仲裁判斷之閥門，在仲裁判斷之撤銷訴訟，高等行政法院即仍應審查，當事人於公法契約協議仲裁之標的是否依法依約行使處分權限；另一方面也應注意仲裁判斷是否有違反法律上強制、禁止規定或公序良俗，以確保民主法治國的行政法制。

This article focuses on issues of arbitrability of disputes arising from public contracts and whether arbitration awards should be re-viewed by administrative courts. A comparative study between German and the Taiwanese laws have indicated that disputes arising from public contracts are arbitrable, and arbitration clauses contained in public contracts share the same nature as public contracts and hence enjoy the status of such contracts. Although these disputes are arbitrable, the author argued that legal boundaries of the procedural and substantive laws should be noted. High Administrative Courts should preside cases regarding setting aside the arbitration awards for disputes arising from public contracts. The author also asserted that High Administrative Courts, in accordance with the Arbitration Act in Taiwan, should take into account public policy, prohibited and mandatory rules, as well as the extent of breach of contract when reviewing cases regarding setting aside of arbitration awards, in order to maintain rule of law in Taiwan.