中國大陸行政訴訟法引入調解問題研究

Research on the Introduction of Mediation into Administrative Procedure Law in China

訴訟調解是法院解決糾紛、化解矛盾的重要方式，在發揮化解社會矛盾、增進社會和諧發揮重要功能，並減少當事人的訟累。行政訴訟制度原則上是人民告政府，但作為訴訟當事人一方的行政機關，容易運用公權力迫使另一方當事人接受調解方案，進而侵害當事人的訴訟權。由此可見，若允許任何行政訴訟案件都能適用調解，容易造成人民迫於行政機關的權威，而輕易接受行政機關所提出的調解條件，而無法確保公平審判的保障。在1990年代，中國大陸開始制定《行政訴訟法》時，為了避免此一情況發生，就明確規定行政訴訟不適用調解，而現行《行政訴訟法》第六十條明確規定，法院審理行政案件，不適用調解。不過，隨著時代的變遷，這樣的規定已經不符合當前社會環境的現實需求，因為《行政訴訟法》明文禁止的規定，導致當事人無法使用調解，反而使用案外協商的方式將紛爭解決，與其用這種變相的調解方式來規避法律的規定，還不如名正言順以法律明文承認調解的合法性，以解決目前實踐上和法制上脫節的奇怪現象。未來《行政訴訟法》進行修法時，應該適當引入調解，給予合理的規範，體現法律對社會發展的與時俱進，以符合全面推動依法治國的主張。 The so-called frustrated expense is a matter of reliance. The creditor is willing to pay such expenses because he trusts that the debtor will perform his obligations of the contract. This payment of expenses will become meaningless (frustrated) when the debtor breaches the contract. In this case the creditor can claim for compensation of damage of positive interest according to the civil code of Taiwan. However, the nature of this damage caused by frustrated expenses refers to the restitution of the negative interest. Due to a lack of causality the relating regulation of civil code cannot be applied here. The jurisprudence and the legal praxis in Taiwan are rarely aware of this problem so far. The reason is that the traditional theories of damage cannot provide the solution to this problem. In contrast, since more than one hundred years this issue has been steady discussed in Germany, but a consensus could not be reached. In 2002 the German obligation law was amended to solve this problem. Since then debates around this new regulation of § 284 BGB are still ongoing. This essay is focused on the legal problems of frustrated expenses before and after the amendment of BGB in Germany. Based on this research the possibility to receive the German law in Taiwan will be under study.