裁罰性不利處分vs. 非裁罰性不利處分──兼評台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

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。

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.