大法庭設置後之審判思維──一體適用與個案正義之衝突

Beyond the Great Panel Adjudication: Conflicts between the General Rule and the Ad Hoc Decision

司法裁判從事法律解釋時，不僅應顧慮法律見解之正確性，亦應確保其安定性。若法院能統一見解，達成穩定而可預測性之法律解釋共識，當事人能聚焦其辯論，並促使法院之法律見解更為精進。然而司法實務也可能面臨個案之特殊性，而必須另設不同之判準，因此在法律解釋上，產生一體適用與個案正義兩價值應以何者優先之問題。2019年1月4日公布新修正之法院組織法及行政法院組織法，將我國司法實務現有之判例、決議制度廢止，另設立大法庭制度，乃我國司法實務統一法律見解之新紀元，本文藉由分析一體適用與個案正義兩衝突價值，初探法院在新制下適當之操作方針。

When the statute at issue is ambiguous, the court has to not only provide the correct interpretation, but also ensure the stability of its opinion. The circumstances of the similar questions of law would become predictable, and the parties will have better chances to content more efficiently in the following cases based on the stable precedents. In certain marginal cases, however, the ad hoc determinations can not be avoided. As a result, if the judicial system tries to establish a formal proceeding to unify the interpretation of laws, there are conflicts between the general rule and the ad hoc decision. According to the amendments of Court Organic Act and The Administrative Court Organization Act in 2019, Great Panel, a 11-or-9-judge-committee set up by the new law, may decide the question of law and deliver the formal judicial interpretation of the court before a particular collegial panel announces its decision. If one collegial panel is prepared to release an opinion with a particular statutory interpretation which is different from the former one, the panel is obligated to ask Great Panel to adjudicate the specific issue. This article analyzes the possible implement of the new law and suggests a practical method that the court can apply new law appropriately.