預防性不作為訴訟與暫時權利保護之關係──兼評臺北高等行政法院高等行政訴訟庭112年度全字第56號裁定

The Relationship Between Preventive Injunction Litigation and Interim Relief: Comments on the High Administrative Litigation Division of Taipei High Administrative Court Ruling No.56 in 2023

預防性不作為訴訟與暫時權利保護制度均係基於憲法第16條訴訟權保障之及時有效權利救濟而設立的制度。暫時權利保護制度於2000年施行之行政訴訟法第116條及第七編保全程序定有明文，惟預防性不作為訴訟至今仍未有明文之規定，故能否以現有之訴訟類型來形塑、續造，進而肯認其容許性，於學說及實務向來有所爭議。此外，近來有論者認為，對國家侵害之事前預防應以定暫時狀態假處分之方式來達成，而無庸、也不應承認預防性不作為訴訟，否則即有害依法行政及依法審判，且會架空基本權侵害之審查構造；然而，本文並不贊同此觀點。再者，倘若承認預防性不作為訴訟，則為避免其審理延宕而對原告造成難以回復損害之暫時權利保護制度，亦即預防性暫時權利保護，也應當容許原告聲請；惟預防性暫時權利保護之實體裁定要件與本案訴訟是否有異、二者間之連動關係，以及預防性暫時權利保護之實體審查標準與其他類型之暫時權利保護程序有無不同，皆有待研求。本文將以臺北高等行政法院高等行政訴訟庭112年度全字第56號裁定為例，說明預防性不作為訴訟與其暫時權利保護之容許性及二者間之關聯，並針對預防性暫時權利保護之實體裁定要件及實體審查標準進行探討，再就討論所得之結論綜合評析系爭裁定。

Preventive injunction litigation and the system of interim relief are both established to ensure timely and effective legal remedies, as guaranteed by the right of instituting legal proceedings under Article 16 of Constitution of the Republic of China. The system of interim relief is explicitly stated in Article 116 and Part 7 Provisional Remedies Proceeding of the Administrative Litigation Act, which came into effect in 2000. However, preventive injunction litigation remains unregulated by any explicit statutory provision. As a result, whether it can be shaped and developed within existing types of litigation and recognized as admissible has long been a subject of debate in both legal scholarship and judicial practice. A scholar has recently argued that preventive measures against administrative intervention should be addressed through provisional injunction maintaining a temporary status quo, rather than through preventive injunction litigation which should also not be admitted. The scholar contends that preventive injunction litigation would undermine the principles of administration according to law, trial according to law and framework of judicial review. However, this article does not support this point of view. Furthermore, if the preventive injunction litigation is admitted, then in order to prevent delaying the trial and causing irreparable damage to the plaintiff, preventive interim relief should also allow the petitioner to claim. Nevertheless, whether the conditions of admissibility for ruling preventive interim relief differ from those for rendering judgment or not, how they are interrelated, and whether the review model of preventive interim relief are aligned with that of other types of interim relief or not. This article illustrates the admissibility and interrelation between preventive injunction litigation and preventive interim relief by analyzing the High Administrative Litigation Division of Taipei High Administrative Court ruling No.56 in 2023. It further explores the conditions of admissibility and the review model of preventive interim relief before providing a comprehensive assessment of the ruling based on the conclusions obtained from the discussion.