| 英文摘要 |
In contrast to the injunctive procedure deriving from civil litigation, the institution of suspension from execution is a feature of administrative remedies, aiming to prevent irreparable damages from enforcing administrative decisions. This article focuses on the institution of suspension from execution in French administrative litigation law and finds that, between the two legislative models of suspension from execution in principle or on exception, the French law is not only the forerunner but the pioneer of institutional reform of the latter, which the Japanese and Taiwanese law systems adopt.
According to our research, the principle of non-suspension of execution due to litigations has been a fundamental rule in French administrative litigation law for more than two centuries, and the accompanying procedure of“sursisàexécution”has numerous similar traits to the current Japanese and Taiwanese law systems. Nonetheless, the institution underwent a major reform in 2000 because of its ineffectiveness in practice. The current version of the suspension from execution system remains based on the principle of non-suspension of execution due to litigations. Still, it relaxed the condition to its claim, created a new procedure for extreme urgencies, established a simple and rapid trial mechanism, and intensified the powers of the judges; thus, to a certain extent, the institution has transformed into a practical weapon to safeguard the rights of the people.
The author argues that the choice between the two legislative models–whether adopting the principle of non-suspension of execution or not, is related to the philosophy and the institutional design of administrative remedies of every country. Despite the French administrative litigation law known for its emphasis on the control of legality, it has adapted to the worldwide trend of intensifying the procedural guarantees of the people. On the contrary, our administrative litigation system inherited the German model, which emphasizes the safeguarding of people’s rights; hence, even if we do not wish to adopt the principle of suspension of execution, referring to the concerns of administrative efficiency, we should make a significant step forward in the reform of our legal procedures concerning the suspension from execution. |
