大學自治與教師不續聘－由憲法法庭111年憲判字第11號判決出發

Abstract

本文從憲法法庭111年憲判字第11號判決之案例事實及判決內容出發，探討其中所涉及之法律問題。首先，探討大學自治相關問題。不僅討論了大學自治之性質，其與學術自由之關係為何，更討論大學之法律地位，具行政機關地位之大學得否成為學術自由之基本權主體。接著類型化大學自治之內涵，並探討本判決所重申之教師聘用自主權。再來討論國家對大學之監督，著重在國家監督大學之密度與方法，並探討再申訴決定若維持了由大學校內申評會作成、不利於大學之申訴決定，是否構成國家對大學之監督，有無限制大學自治。最後討論大學權利救濟之問題。 其次，本文探討了限期升等條款作為不續聘事由之相關問題。不僅討論了學理上對於限期升等條款正當性之正反意見，更討論了限期升等條款作為不續聘事由在法律適用上之問題，大學教師違反限期升等條款時，是否即得將之不續聘，有無回歸適用教師法第16條之必要，亦即教評會在作成不續聘決議時，應否考量教師違反限期升等條款之情節是否重大。接著討論教育主管機關就大學所報請不續聘案進行核准時，其審查之密度及考量之因素。就此些問題，本文以對限期升等條款進行合憲性審查之方式提出本文對上述爭點之見解。 最後，則對不續聘教師之法律性質與教師之救濟進行探討。首先區分公私立大學，討論其與教師間之法律關係為何，接著對大學不續聘教師之行為進行性質上之探討，並對教育主管機關核准之性質一併討論。在定性完相關之行為後，接著討論教師應如何對不續聘提起救濟，包括應以何標的提起爭訟，及提起爭訟之救濟途徑。

This thesis analyzes the legal issues involved in the case facts and content of TCC Judgment 111 Hsien-Pan-11. First, it discusses the related issues of university autonomy, including the nature of university autonomy, its relationship with academic freedom, and the legal status of universities. It discusses whether universities, as administrative bodies, can be considered the subjects of academic freedom. The thesis then categorizes the different aspects of university autonomy and explores the autonomy of faculty employment as reaffirmed in the judgment. Next, it discusses the state's supervision of universities, focusing on the intensity and methods of such supervision. It examines whether the re-appeal decision, which upholds the appeal decision made by the university's internal appeal committee and is unfavorable to the university, constitutes state's supervision of universities and limits university autonomy. Finally, it discusses the issue of legal remedies available to universities. Secondly, this thesis discusses the relevant issues of the deadline promotion clause as a reason for non-renewal of employment. It discusses the academic debate surrounding the legitimacy of the deadline promotion clause, presenting both supporting and opposing views. Then it discusses the legal application of the deadline promotion clause as a reason for non-renewal of employment. Specifically, it considers whether a university can terminate a faculty member's employment solely for violating the deadline promotion clause, or whether it is necessary to revert to applying Article 16 of the Teachers’ Act. This involves assessing whether University Faculty Evaluation Committee should consider the severity of the violation when making a non-renewal decision. The thesis also discusses the level of scrutiny and the factors that the educational authorities should consider when approving a university’s non-renewal decision. To address these issues, the thesis conducts a constitutional review of the deadline promotion clause, offering insights into the aforementioned controversies. Finally, it discusses the legal nature of non-renewal and the remedies available to teachers. Firstly, it distinguishes between public and private universities, discussing the legal relationship between them and teachers. Then, it discusses the nature of the university's non-renewal of teachers and the nature of the approval of the education authority. After defining the relevant actions, the discussion moves to how teachers can seek remedies against non-renewal, including the appropriate litigated object and the avenues for pursuing such remedies.