月旦知識庫
 
  1. 熱門:
 
首頁 臺灣期刊   法律   公行政治   醫事相關   財經   社會學   教育   其他 大陸期刊   核心   重要期刊 DOI文章
裁判時報 本站僅提供期刊文獻檢索。
  【月旦知識庫】是否收錄該篇全文,敬請【登入】查詢為準。
最新【購點活動】


篇名
絕適用憲法的行政法院──釋字第七三○號解釋評釋
並列篇名
The Administrative Court Refuses to Apply the Constitution
作者 李劍非
中文摘要
釋字第七三○號解釋所涉及之實體憲法問題,包括給付行政法律保留之司法審查密度、公立學校教職員退休金之權利所涉及者為憲法第十八條服公職權抑或憲法第十五條財產權等,皆有其探討價值。惟本號解釋所彰顯更重要之意義,乃是本號解釋從釋字第六五八號解釋以來之司法懈怠事實,即行政法院拒絕於個案中適用憲法及大法官解釋,即使大法官已於前案透過大法官解釋宣告極為類似之法律條文違憲,行政法院還是拒絕參考大法官意旨,為人民於個案中運用合憲解釋或拒絕釋用行政命令等方式,為人民落實個案救濟,本案聲請人仍須透過三級三審後,透過大法官再度以解釋宣告法規違憲,方或可取得一線救濟之曙光。釋字第七三○號解釋為行政法院淪為大法官說一動做一動之人民敗訴法院,無法落實司法提供及時有效救濟之核心功能,提供最好的啟示。
英文摘要
The issues of the constitutional interpretation No. 730 include the judicial review of legislative delegation for social welfare measures, and whether the pension right is a property right under Article 15 or a right of access to public service uner Article 18 of the Constitution, which are all very meningful. However, a more critical point of the constitutional interpretation No. 730 is that it shows the judicial idleness from interpretations No. 658 to No. 730. The administrative courts refused to apply the Constitution or the Constitutional Court’s interpretations in the cases. Even though the Constitutional Court has declared similar laws to be unconstitutional, the administrative courts still refused to refer to the interpretation to remedy the people by refusing to apply unconstitutional decrees or applying the law in a constitutional way. The petitioner in interpretation No. 730 still needed to exhaust three levels of trial and waited until the Constitutional Court to declare the law unconstitutional and finally might be able to get a chance for receiving remedy. The constitutional interpretation No. 730 shed the light on the problem of our administrative courts being the losing courts and the puppet of the Constitutional Court, which fails the judicial function of providing the timely remedy to people.
起訖頁 76-90
關鍵詞 憲法訴訟及時有效救濟合憲解釋司法消極主義給付行政法律保留服公職權Constitutional LitigationTimely RemedyInterpret the Law in a Constitutional WayJudicial PessimistLegislative Delegation for Social Welfare MeasuresRight of Access to Public Service
刊名 裁判時報  
期數 201602 (44期)
出版單位 元照出版公司
DOI 10.3966/207798362016020044008   複製DOI
QRCode
該期刊-上一篇 北大巨蛋開發案之環評爭議探討(下)──臺北高等行政法院一○○年度訴字第一七五一號、最高行政法院一○二年度判字第四五三號判決之研析
該期刊-下一篇 特留分扣減之方法──最高法院九十九年度台上字第九一八號民事判決
 

新書閱讀



最新影音


優惠活動




讀者服務專線:+886-2-23756688 傳真:+886-2-23318496
地址:臺北市館前路28 號 7 樓 客服信箱
Copyright © 元照出版 All rights reserved. 版權所有,禁止轉貼節錄