論公法上顯屬輕微之概念

Abstract

涉及可否提起司法救濟的「顯屬輕微概念」，自司法院釋字第755號解釋出現於我國法，除了隨後經實定法化於監獄行刑法及羈押法外，並再次出現於釋字第784號及第785號解釋。雖業經文獻與實務的進一步發展，其構成要件與法律效果仍晦暗不明，且與其他概念，包括特別權力關係、有無理由、訴訟權能、顯無理由、權利濫用及權利保護必要糾葛不清。又從文獻來看，德國法上存在微量保留理論及聯邦憲法法院法的相關規定可供顯屬輕微概念的解釋參考。因此，本文乃以德國法為比較法觀察對象，嘗試為我國公法上顯屬輕微之概念建構完整的解釋論。 為了與我國既存法律解釋脈絡接軌，同時進行有效率的比較法觀察，本文於建構我國法的解釋論前，先深入回顧我國法的相關概念，再進行德國法的詳細探究。在「我國法之回顧」章節，依照歷史發展的順序，首先確認相關法律概念在傳統觀點下是否包含顯屬輕微概念，其次觀察提出顯屬輕微概念的司法院解釋意見書，再廣泛調查相關解釋公布後的發展。在確認我國法的認知與未解難題後，於「德國法之觀察」章節，以微量保留理論與聯邦憲法法院法第93條之1第2項為主軸分別展開比較法調查，並延伸觀察德國法所處的歐洲法脈絡。最後，本於比較法觀察所得，於「公法上顯屬輕微概念之解釋」章節開展我國法的解釋論。 經過研究，本文認為我國公法上顯屬輕微概念可分為廣義與狹義二義，二者均以明顯符合狹義比例原則為概念核心，亦即系爭國家行為所造成的損害遠小於所追求的公益。狹義顯屬輕微概念由司法院釋字第784號及第785號所揭示，經最高行政法院進一步詮釋，同時並以系爭國家行為符合所有法律要求為內涵，但其意義僅在提醒法院，即便允許學生及公務人員提起司法救濟，仍須依法審判，而非必然判決其勝訴。廣義顯屬輕微概念則不問系爭國家行為合法與否，於監獄行刑事件，法院得以欠缺權利保護必要，判決駁回原告之訴；於憲法訴訟事件，憲法法庭得以案件非為貫徹聲請人基本權利所必要而不受理之。最後，本文主張廣義顯屬輕微概念作為權利保護必要概念的一環，解釋上即適用於所有行政訴訟事件中，以最大限度實現訴訟經濟，俾利整體人民的訴訟權保障。

This thesis seeks to establish a proper interpretation of the concept “obviously minor infringement” which emerged in public law with the announcement of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 755. Notwithstanding the further elaboration by academics and administrative court, its interpretation remained vague and disputed. To add a different point of view, the relevant German law, so-called “minimum threshold” – Bagatellvorbehalt – and articles of Federal Constitutional Court Act (Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz – BVerfGG), also falls within the scope of this thesis. To gear towards the discussion existed and conduct an efficient comparative law observation, as much literature as possible and court decisions are thoroughly examined in the Chapter II. With the precise understanding of the current state of law, the theory of minimum threshold and § 93a sec. 2 BVerfGG in German law are carefully observed in the Chapter III, extending to the context of European law. Lastly, this thesis tries to interpret the concept of obviously minor infringement in Public Law. This thesis argues that there are two related concepts regarding the concept of obviously minor infringement – the general concept and the special concept. Both concepts require the harm caused by the state measure in question be far lesser than the public interest that the measure aimed at achieving. The special concept of obviously minor infringement further requires the state measure in question be in full conformity with the law, whereas the general concept does not. In case where the general concept of obviously minor infringement is found by the administrative court, the court may, without oral argument, issue a judgement dismissing the case. In conclusion, to reach maximized procedural economy and a balanced protection of the rights of the people, the general concept of obviously minor infringement should apply to all cases within the jurisdiction of administrative court.