有見解歧異便要移送大法庭？──統一見解、審判獨立、當事人權益保護之調和

Is Divergent Interpretations an Absolute Indication for Opening the Great Panel? Balancing Interpretation Unification, Judicial Independence, and Litigant Rights Protection

本文作者針對臺灣甫施行的大法庭新制中有關「歧異提案」的適用前提進行探討，根據作者研究，應在調和統一見解、審判獨立、當事人權益保護的觀點下分析各種情形是否需要提案到大法庭，由大法庭統一見解；而非實務上在任何有歧異見解的時候，均需羈束性地移送到大法庭。作者藉由分析民事訴訟法學理論、三審法院定位，考量了程序選擇權、程序處分權等制度，並兼及統一法律見解的公益性，說明了在各種情形的處理方法。

This research aims to provide a discussion on the prerequisites of “divergent interpretations” cases in the newly introduced Great Panel system of Taiwan. According to this research, cases with divergent interpretations should be analyzed from the perspectives of interpretation unification, judicial independence, and litigant rights protection when deciding whether to open a Great Panel to unify interpretations, in order to maintain a balance of the above. In practice, all cases with divergent interpretations are restrained to indicate the opening of a Great Panel. This research analyzes civil procedural law theories and the role of the Supreme Court, considered right of procedural options and procedural dispositions, as well as the public interest in unifying interpretations, to explain how each case shall proceed under the new system.