群體紛爭救濟程序之研究：以德國投資人示範訴訟與美國集團訴訟之比較為中心

Abstract

群體紛爭救濟程序可以說是不分國界，一直持續處於發展狀態之民事訴訟議題，而可能隨著社會發展、經濟變遷而有調整之必要。尤其是在各自具有本國法特色，惟同時亦受歐盟指令拘束之歐洲各國間，對於群體紛爭救濟制度之抉擇，在比較法上更屬有趣。本論文先從歐洲法出發，介紹歐洲群體紛爭救濟程序之基本權利保障要求、發展流程及概略架構，再以形式當事人作為區分標準，就以「自然人」、「公益團體」、「行政機關」分別作為代表原告之類型、程序設計及效果為說明。 基本上，歐洲係將群體權利實現之方式交由公共執行，而處於執牛耳地位之德國，亦不例外。德國向來著重以公益團體作為原告之團體訴訟型態，直到2005年，始創設由自然人作為原告之群體紛爭救濟程序，即《投資人示範訴訟法》，該法除了在程序設計上呈現分階審理之特色外，在示範原告之擇定、示範決定之拘束效及排除等面向上，也與傳統之德國民事訴訟法概念不盡相符。另外，該法於2012年修正時，擴大適用範圍、新增請求登記制度，並將過去應由全體關係人同意始有效力之和解制度，修正為經法院許可即生效力之態樣，並賦予關係人有退出之權限，效法荷蘭《大型損害事件集團和解制度》成功之經驗。上開種種，均有可供我國法參考之價值。 而在大西洋彼端之美國，美國集團訴訟早已是世界各國制定群體救濟紛爭程序之比較研究對象，本論文首先僅概略介紹美國「統合訴訟法律原則」之重要內容，而將重點置於聯邦民事訴訟規則第23條規定，就集團之要件、類型等重點為介紹。而在美國證券集團訴訟上，由於另設有必須選任主導原告、確認集團決定之程序，乃係較為特殊之處。而判決效力及於缺席集團成員之正當化依據在於法院對集團成員之通知及其收受通知後之退出權利，亦為美國法上專屬之特色。最後，在勞工保障之領域，集團訴訟卻改採加入制程序，而與一般之集團訴訟有何異同，亦屬值得探究之議題。 我國文獻上向來就此議題為比較法研究時，多挑選德國團體訴訟與美國集團訴訟兩者作為比較對象，實則前者係由公益團體作為原告、後者則以自然人作為原告，而有本質上差異，毋寧宜以美國集團訴訟及德國投資人示範訴訟法此二種均以自然人作為原告，而具有解決群體紛爭功能之制度互相比對、參照，較能看出兩國之差異所在。尤其是針對權利救濟目的、程序開展之形式、實質要件、程序標的、集團成員之程序保障、代表人選任、律師角色、關係人之參與權、拘束效以及和解程序等面向。本文另同時介紹德國2005年《團體、示範以及集團訴訟法草案》，期能掌握德國法上最新之法制發展。 最後，我國民訴法第44條之2追加選定當事人制度與上開制度具有交集意義，在程序開展、資訊公告、代表人選任、律師角色、關係人參與權利、和解、判決拘束力等面向，均有與美、德兩國可資比較之處。本文在結論上認為，得參照美、德兩國法制，將民訴法第44條之2由原被選定人作為代表人之模式，改由法院依職權選任代表人，並將共同利益人併案請求之效果等同於一般訴訟之提出，而不必視為已依民訴法第41條為選定，此可將民訴法第44條之2規定與第41條規定脫勾，更能區別民訴法第41條及第44條之2擔負解決重大型紛爭及擴散型紛爭之不同功能，期能強化以自然人作為原告之群體紛爭救濟制度效益。

Collective Redress is a growing article of civil procedure in this world. The procedure will adjust with the time pass. The most interesting is that the country in Europe has its own characteristic on one side, but its also bound by the Directive from the Europe Union on the other side. Firstly, this thesis introduces the fundamental right requirement of Collective Redress, the process of the development in Europe, the summary classification and explanation. Then this thesis set up the criteria on the status of formal plaintiff, including the natural person, the non-profit organization, and the public organization. Basically, the way to accomplish the right is resort to the public enforcement in Europe. Germany is unexceptional. That is why the high importance of Verbandsklage in the past in Germany. Until 2005, Germany legislated the new model which called Kapitalanleger-Musterverfahrensgesetz(KapMuG). The special characteristic of KapMuG is stage procedure. And there are a lot of aspects showing the difference with the traditional civil procedure concept, including the decision of representative party(Musterklager) and the effect and the exception of the verdict(Musterentscheid). The amendment of 2012 includes expanding the scope of the KapMuG, adding the process of Anmeldung eines Anspruchs, and the variation of settlement. Then across the Atlantic to the America,“class action”is the blueprint when designing the Collective Redress in the world. This thesis introduces the principle of “aggregate litigation”at first. Then putting the emphasis on the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, including the requirement and the category of class action. In the area of securities class action, there are the special procedure to choose the“leading plaintiff”and the“certification”. In America, the basis of justification of extending the effect of the verdict to the absent class member is“Notice”and the right to “Opt-out”.And the interesting theme is that the right to opt-out is changing in the area of laborer protection. This thesis puts emphasis on the comparison between the KapMuG in Germany and class action in America. For example, the purpose of the remedy, the formal and substantive requirement of the outset of the process, the subject matter of process, the procedure protection of class member, the choose of representative, the role of lawyer, the right of participation of the third person, the binding effect and the settlement. This thesis also introduces the“Gesetz zur Regelung von Verbands-, Muster-und Gruppenklage”from the Germany. Finally, back to Taiwan, it’s worth to compare §44-2 of civil procedure in Taiwan with the KapMuG and class action. By referring to the content of Germany and America, this thesis suggests that the representative could be chosen from the court and restricts the effect when the third person chooses opt-in to the procedure so that might have the opportunity to modify the inefficiency of the current §44-2 of civil procedure.