| 摘要註: |
我國行政罰法所定處罰，除罰鍰、沒入外，尚包括裁罰性不利處分，此一立法例乃係配合我國向來實證法之現實，廣納現行各行政專法上之各種罰名之結果，立法之初學界即有批評，認為失之過寬，甚有認為應限縮解釋使其限定於罰鍰者。行政罰法制定之初即於立法理由中例示三種不具裁罰性之處分，作為判斷之參考，惟仍無法滿足實務之需，早在行政罰法公布後施行前，行政院法規委員會即於2005年12月23日召開諮詢會議，就行政處分之撤銷或廢止事由或要件，判斷其究屬裁罰性不利處分與否之基準，邀請專家學者討論，足見實務上早已體認到問題之複雜性，亦興起本論文研究之動機。首先，自不利處分之性質及特徵出發，探討其概念，並將其類型分為行政處分之撤銷與廢止、管制措施與制裁措施等三類加以說明，以確立不利處分之範圍。繼而，析述裁罰性不利處分之概念、種類。又鑒於現行各專業行政法規罰則所規定之法律效果，係採多種類行政罰之規範模式，大致類似美國之現況，而在行政法總論上我國又向來繼受大陸法系，尤其是德國之制度，因此，在研究方法上，除分析我國學說、實務之見解外，美、德兩國行政罰制度之發展，對於釐清裁罰性不利處分之概念及其範圍，亦有助益，本文爰予介紹及整理。其次，不利處分與傳統秩序罰分屬不同領域，在形式上及表現上均有甚大之差異，性質未必相侔，而裁罰性不利處分作為行政罰之一種類型，則處罰法定原則、一行為不二罰原則、責任原則、裁罰權行使時效原則等行政罰法之重要原則，均應遵守，反之，單純之不利處分因非屬行政罰而無行政罰法之適用，此為實務上區分之實益。最後，本論文之研究目的，即在對裁罰性與非裁罰性不利處分之區分，嘗試建構一實務上可資操作之判斷基準，吾人雖知問題之癥結在於不利處分是否具有「裁罰性」，惟實務上個案判斷己屬不易，欲建立一通案適用之標準，更形困難，本文爰於實務及學說見解之基礎上，建構三項審查要素，即有無行政法上義務之違反、是否具裁罰性、以及是否符合罰及一身原則。希透過上述三項審查要素，有助於建立較為客觀之思考模式。同時，為驗證本文提出之判斷基準在實務上之可操作性，爰以消防法規為例，逐一探討消防法及爆竹煙火管理條例等二法中所定各種不利處分之屬性。 The penalty stipulated in Administrative Penalty Act, besides fines and forfeiture, includes adverse action of punitive nature. This exemplification meets the reality of experiment law and to subsume the recent penalty of administrative laws. The academic of legislation criticize that it is too extensive. Further more, it should be limited to fines. At the beginning of legislating Administrative Penalty Act, three examples of non-punitive nature action were given in the legislation reasons as the reference of judgment, but still can not satisfy the needs of practice. Before the Administrative Penalty Act was notified, the Legal Affairs Committee, inviting professionals and scholars, held a consulting meeting on December 23 in 2005 to judge if it is the standard of adverse action of punitive nature based on the cause or condition of revocation or abolishment of administrative action.First, begins with the nature and characteristics of adverse action to explore its concept, then divides it into the revocation and abolishment of administrative action, control measure and sanction measure, and illustrates to confirm the scope of adverse action. Afterwards, analyzes the concept and types of adverse action of punitive nature. Given the legal effects of discipline stipulated in recent professional administrative laws adopt the norm of different kinds of administrative penalty, similar to the status quo of America, and as for the general principles of administrative law, our country succeed continental system. Therefore, in study method, this study explores the development of America and Germany’s administrative penalty system to clarify the concept and scope of adverse action of Punitive Nature besides analyzing the opinions of this country’s theory and practice.Second, the adverse action and traditional order penalty belong to different fields, much differential in style and presentation, and not equal in nature. The adverse actions of punitive nature, a type of administrative penalty, should abide by the important principles, such as the leagal principle of penalty, the principle of “ne bis in idem”, the principle of responsibility and the principle of punitive exercise prescription. On the contrary, the adverse actions, not belonging to administrative penalty, do not apply to administrative penalty act. That is the differential effectiveness of practice. Last, the purpose of this study, aiming at the differentiation between punitive and non-punitive adverse actions, tries to construct an operative judgement standard in practice. We learn the cause of this issue depends on whether the adverse action is punitive or not. But it is not easy to judge in practical case. It must be more difficult to establish a common standard. This study, based on the view of practice and acdemic, constructs three examining elements: whether violating the responsibility of administrative law, punitive or non-punitive, and conforming to the self-liability principle. This study hopes to help set up more objective thinking model via the above three examining elements. Moreover, to verify the operability in practice of the judgement standard mentioned in this study, this study explores the attribution of varied adverse actions regulated in fire laws and firecrackers management acts one by one. |