論違憲定期失效──兼論德奧法制之比較

On the Temporarily Continuous Validity of Unconstitutional Law: With a Comparison of German and Austrian Law

司法院大法官自釋字第218號解釋起，「違憲定期失效」成為一種時常被使用的宣告模式。然而，「定期失效」之期間內，該被宣告違憲之法律的效力以及應如何被適用，成為司法實務與法律學說上爭執不休的議題。本文首先提出大法官釋憲實務之發展及相關學說之意見，並介紹近年司法院大法官審理案件法修正草案就此一爭議之規定。其次，比較德國聯邦憲法法院及奧地利憲法法院之裁判模式、效力及其理論基礎，分析德國之「無效理論」與奧地利之「失效理論」於實踐上之重點之差異——即德國認為違憲之法令原則上應係自始、當然無效，而著重於已確定案件之討論；奧地利則認為違憲之法令僅為「透過特別程序而得撤銷」，著重於原因案件與類似案件之法適用區分。最後，將提出我國釋憲實務以及修法草案對於德奧兩國法制交錯繼受所產生的不一致情況，並提出本文見解而為結論。

After Interpretation No. 218 Judicial Yuan, declaration of “temporarily continuous validity of unconstitutional law” has become a common declaration mode of Great Justice. But the question is fallowed: What the validity of the unconstitutional law and how could it be applied during the period when it still keep it’s validity? This article will firstly introduce the constitutional-interpretation practice of Great Justice and discussion of theoretical opinions. Secondly, to compare the decision mode, validity and theoretical basis of Federal Constitutional Court of Germany and Constitutional Court of Austria, and to analyze the “Nichtigkeitslehre” of Germany and “Vernichtbarkeitslehre” of Austria. Lastly, discussing the misunderstanding of constitutional-interpretation practice of Great Justice and the Amendment of Constitutional Interpretation Procedure Act, and make the conclusion.