法律交會下的漏洞填補？──最高行政法院112年度大字第2號裁定評析

Filling the Legal Loophole under the Concurrence of Laws?–Focusing on the Decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court (112) Da Tzu No. 2

最高行政法院於2024年3月1日作成112年度大字第2號裁定，指出行政機關作成言詞行政處分，卻漏未為救濟教示，相對人或利害關係人如於言詞行政處分經合法通知一年內聲明不服，視為於法定期間所為。對此，有少數法官提出二份不同意見書表示反對。在原因案件屬政府採購爭議事件之前提下，多數意見與不同意見的論辯環繞下述問題展開：(1)政府採購法第六章規定之爭議處理程序，是否為行政程序法中有關行政處分救濟教示及其法律效果規定之特別法；(2)行政程序法未令行政機關作成言詞行政處分時，須為救濟教示予以規定，是否為法律漏洞？本文擬從法學方法的視角觀察二者看法，究應以何者為妥。

In its decision (112) Da Tzu No. 2, issued on 1 March 2024, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that, in the event that an administrative agency issues an oral administrative decision without providing instructions on legal remedies, and the affected or interested party files an objection within one year of receiving legal notification of the decision, the objection is considered to have been filed within the statutory period. A minority of the judges expressed dissenting opinions on this matter. The debate was primarily focused on two pivotal issues, namely: (1) The question of whether the dispute resolution procedures set out in Chapter 6 of the Government Procurement Act should be considered a lex specialis regarding the instructions on legal remedies and their legal effects as stipulated in the Administrative Procedure Act. (2) The question of whether the absence of a requirement in the Administrative Procedure Act for administrative agencies to provide instructions on legal remedies when making oral administrative decisions represents a legal loophole is also addressed. The objective of this article is to examine these differing views from a legal methodology perspective in order to determine which position is more appropriate.