行政法院對黨產會權力之節制──以大法庭聲請制度為核心

The Restraint of Authority from the Administrative Court to the Political Parties’ Property Association: Bases on the Petition System in Chancery System of the Court Organization Act

立法院自民國108年7月4日通過了法院組織法及行政法院組織法，在最高法院及最高行政法院設置了大法庭，裁判法律爭議。不同於以往，最高法院、最高行政法院透過決議的方式，經由案例的選取及對爭議問題之決議，達到統一裁判見解的目地。實施大法庭制度之後，改為透過歧異見解的提案義務以及個案的拘束力，達成縱向及橫向的拘束效果。本文以不當黨產為實例，觀察最高行政法院大法庭聲請制度，發現新實施的大法庭制度存有缺失。以提案義務而言，最高行政法院各庭發生見解歧異時法律上便課予該庭有提案義務，提案予大法庭裁判。然而觀察黨產案，最高行政法院第一庭、第二庭與先前第三庭、第四庭的見解有異，卻怠於行使提案予大法庭審判之義務。提案庭忽略了提案義務，以致他庭無從表達意見，亦使最高行政法院統一見解之機制無從發揮。此外，有異於德、日大法庭制度，我國允許當事人提案聲請大法庭審理制度，惟其聲請要件必須在最高行政法院各庭審理事件期間提案。本文感到疑惑，除非最高行政法院審理之法官事先揭露裁判心證予當事人，或是承審法庭已審理過相同法律問題之案件，表達過歧異之見解，否則當事人於收到裁判之前無從得知該庭法律見解，該項規定在裁判的先後邏輯上恐怕無法執行。如果法庭怠於行使提案義務，人民又無從及時知悉法庭見解存有歧異而聲請召開大法庭，人民期待行政法院統一見解，恐將落空。

The Legislative Yuan passed the Court Organization Act and the Administrative Court Organization Act on 04 July 2019, furthermore, the chancery has been set in both supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court in order to adjudicate law issues. The improper party’s properties have been applied as an example to be examined the petition system in chancery system of the Court Organization Act, and errors were founded from the latest chancery system. The proposal obligation of view, when different perspectives appeared in the Administrative Court Organization Act, the courts automatically obliged to propose. At the same time, should require the court to state the exact reasons of decisions and submit to the chancery. However, by observing the first and the second divisions of the Administrative Court Organization Act in the case of improper part’s properties, it is clearly to be seen that the results are different from the previous third and fourth divisions. But, neglected to exercise the obligation to submit a proposal to the Grand Court for trial. has ignored the obligation of providing the proposal, and lead into other courts have no opportunities to express its own perspectives. As a result, the function of a formal proceeding to unify the interpretation of laws from the Administrative Court Organization Act could not be proceed. The author is confused, unless the judge revels his / her moral line to the litigant，or the judge has almost has the same case experience before, or expressed different perspectives of views. The expectation of a certain definition from Administrative Court from people will be failed.