法國行政和解契約之研究

Administrative Settlement Contracts in French Administrative Law

法律上發生爭議之雙方當事人，透過互相退讓以求爭議之解決，為和解制度之基本要義，亦為現代國家法律中經常可見的紛爭解決機制。我國行政程序法，亦在第136條規定有和解契約，自該法生效以來，一直受到學說及理論之多方矚目。相對而言，法國中央行政法院，更自CE 23 décembre 1887 de Dreux-Brézé, évêque de Moulins（穆朗地區主教）一案判決以來，歷百餘年，賡續推動行政上的和解制度不遺餘力。但是，作為一種經濟、簡便的解決行政紛爭手段，在強調上命下從的統治服從關係的行政法領域，究竟可否容許行政機關與行政上相對人進行和解？推理上並非毫無爭論。這樣的討論，所涉及者不僅為行政法上和解制度的本質，更觸及行政法制與其他法制、特別是民法的解釋適用界限，在學理上以及實務上饒富討論價值。本文乃以法國法制之發展為對象，比較論述相關制度在法國法制中之形成，俾作為我國行政程序法第136條相關制度之實施在比較法上之參考。

Settlement, where the parties having legal dispute seek to resolve the dispute through mutual concessions, is a dispute resolution mechanism often adopted in legal systems of modern countries. Article 136 of the Taiwan Administrative Procedure Act provides for the settlement contract, which since its taking effect, has been attentively addressed by scholar opinions and theories. As a comparison, Conseil d'État of France, since CE 23 décembre 1887 de Dreux-Brézé, évêque de Moulins case, has been endeavoring to promote the administrative settlement for over a hundred years. However, while settlement is an economically efficient method to resolve administrative dispute, given that the administrative law emphasizes on the relationship of authority and subordination, it is often argued whether an agency is allowed to enter into a settlement with the adverse party. Such argument does not only involve questions about the nature of settlement in administrative legal regime, but also the limitation for administrative law to apply the interpretation rules of other legal regimes, the Civil Codes in particular, which then constitute an issue-worthy discussion. This article will analyze the development of the settlement mechanism in the French legal system to provide a comparative legal study reference for Taiwan's implementation of settlement as provided in Article 136 of the Taiwan Administrative Procedure Act.