國立高雄大學圖資館 |

Language: English

Back

沒收與追繳押標金在政府採購行為之爭議探討 = A Study on th...

國立高雄大學法律學系碩士班

沒收與追繳押標金在政府採購行為之爭議探討 = A Study on the Controversy Surrounding Confiscation and Collection of Bid Bonds in Regard to Government Procurement

Record Type:	Language materials, printed : monographic
Paralel Title:	A Study on the Controversy Surrounding Confiscation and Collection of Bid Bonds in Regard to Government Procurement
Author:	李振宏,
Secondary Intellectual Responsibility:	國立高雄大學
Place of Publication:	[高雄市]
Published:	撰者;
Year of Publication:	2015[民104]
Description:	151面圖，表 : 30公分;
Subject:	公法行為
Subject:	actions under public law
Online resource:	http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/04454951151009286427
Notes:	參考書目：面143-151
Notes:	104年3月25日公開
Summary:	我國法制現採司法二元制，對於公法與私法之事件除非法律有特別規定，原則依其公法、私法之屬性分別交由行政法院與普通法院審判，在政府採購案件沒收押標金案例中，最高行政法院曾於93年2月份庭長法官聯席會議決議認為廠商於決標後拒不簽約，招標機關沒收押標金係因採購契約履約問題所生之爭議，屬私權糾紛而非公法爭議；最高行政法院又於97年5月份第1次庭長法官聯席會議認為招標機關於決標前依政府採購法第50條第1項第5款，以不同投標廠商間之投標文件內容有重大異常關聯情形，認為廠商有同法第31條第2項第8款所定有影響採購公正之違反法令行為情形，不予發還其押標金，屬公法上爭議。以上兩個案例均屬沒收押標金之爭議，最高行政法院以是否已作成決標處分作為公法上爭議與私法上爭議之區分，這樣劃分的結果，形成了以決標處分是否已經作成(或以契約是否成立)為準，來決定其爭議解決應採行政訴訟或民事訴訟，上開劃分是否屬政府採購行為採「雙階理論」的必然結果？其不論沒收事由為何均以作成決標處分(或以契約是否成立)之時間點作為判斷基準是否妥適？蓋沒收押標金之行為涉及人民財產權之保障範疇及其救濟方法之選擇，實有予以釐清之必要性。 A dual judicial system is currently adopted in Taiwan. Unless otherwise specified by law, the administrative court and ordinary court have jurisdiction over cases involving public law and cases involving private law, respectively, depending on their public or private law nature in principle. In regard to the confiscation of bid bonds in government procurement projects, it was resolved at the joint meeting of the presiding judges and judges of the Supreme Administrative Court in February 2004 that the supplier’s refusal to sign a contract after the award of the contract, upon which the procuring entity confiscates its bid bond, was controversy arising out of the performance of a procurement contract; as a result, this was a dispute that involved private rights rather than public law. Moreover, according to the first joint meeting of the presiding judges and judges of the Supreme Administrative Court in May 2008, the controversy surrounding the fact that the procuring entity, prior to awarding a contract, refused to return bid bonds on the ground that the contents of the tender documents submitted by different tenderers showed a substantial and unusual connection pursuant to Subparagraph 5, Paragraph 1, Article 50 of the Government Procurement Act and consequently the suppliers engaged in activities in breach of laws or regulations which impair the fairness of the procurement, as set forth in Subparagraph 8, Paragraph 2, Article 31 of the same Act, involved public law. In both of the abovementioned cases where there was controversy over the confiscation of bid bonds, the Supreme Administrative Court distinguished public law controversies from private law controversies based on the fact that whether an injunction to award contracts has been issued. Such distinction has caused the choice between administrative litigation and civil litigation for settling a dispute to be made on the basis of the issuance of an injunction to award contracts (or the effectiveness of a contract). Is such distinction an inevitable outcome of the two-level theory adopted for government procurement? Is it appropriate to come to a decision based on when an injunction to award contracts is issued (or the contract comes into effect) regardless of the reason for confiscation? It is necessary to clarify these issues as the confiscation of bid bonds affects the scope of protection of people’s property rights and the choice of remedies.

沒收與追繳押標金在政府採購行為之爭議探討 = A Study on the Controversy Surrounding Confiscation and Collection of Bid Bonds in Regard to Government Procurement
李, 振宏

沒收與追繳押標金在政府採購行為之爭議探討 = A Study on the Controversy Surrounding Confiscation and Collection of Bid Bonds in Regard to Government Procurement / 李振宏撰 - [高雄市] : 撰者, 2015[民104]. - 151面 ; 圖，表 ; 30公分.
參考書目：面143-151104年3月25日公開.
公法行為actions under public law

沒收與追繳押標金在政府採購行為之爭議探討 = A Study on the Controversy Surrounding Confiscation and Collection of Bid Bonds in Regard to Government Procurement
LDR:05381nam0a2200289 450 001 446499
005 20170214093111.0
009 446499
010 0 $b 精裝
010 0 $b 平裝
100 $a 20170214d2015 k y0chiy05 e
101 1 $a chi $d chi $d eng
102 $a tw
105 $a ak am 000yy
200 1 $a 沒收與追繳押標金在政府採購行為之爭議探討 $d A Study on the Controversy Surrounding Confiscation and Collection of Bid Bonds in Regard to Government Procurement $z eng $f 李振宏撰
210 $a [高雄市] $c 撰者 $d 2015[民104]
215 0 $a 151面 $c 圖，表 $d 30公分
300 $a 參考書目：面143-151
300 $a 104年3月25日公開
314 $a 指導教授：陳正根博士
328 $a 碩士論文--國立高雄大學法律學系碩士班
330 $a 我國法制現採司法二元制，對於公法與私法之事件除非法律有特別規定，原則依其公法、私法之屬性分別交由行政法院與普通法院審判，在政府採購案件沒收押標金案例中，最高行政法院曾於93年2月份庭長法官聯席會議決議認為廠商於決標後拒不簽約，招標機關沒收押標金係因採購契約履約問題所生之爭議，屬私權糾紛而非公法爭議；最高行政法院又於97年5月份第1次庭長法官聯席會議認為招標機關於決標前依政府採購法第50條第1項第5款，以不同投標廠商間之投標文件內容有重大異常關聯情形，認為廠商有同法第31條第2項第8款所定有影響採購公正之違反法令行為情形，不予發還其押標金，屬公法上爭議。以上兩個案例均屬沒收押標金之爭議，最高行政法院以是否已作成決標處分作為公法上爭議與私法上爭議之區分，這樣劃分的結果，形成了以決標處分是否已經作成(或以契約是否成立)為準，來決定其爭議解決應採行政訴訟或民事訴訟，上開劃分是否屬政府採購行為採「雙階理論」的必然結果？其不論沒收事由為何均以作成決標處分(或以契約是否成立)之時間點作為判斷基準是否妥適？蓋沒收押標金之行為涉及人民財產權之保障範疇及其救濟方法之選擇，實有予以釐清之必要性。 A dual judicial system is currently adopted in Taiwan. Unless otherwise specified by law, the administrative court and ordinary court have jurisdiction over cases involving public law and cases involving private law, respectively, depending on their public or private law nature in principle. In regard to the confiscation of bid bonds in government procurement projects, it was resolved at the joint meeting of the presiding judges and judges of the Supreme Administrative Court in February 2004 that the supplier’s refusal to sign a contract after the award of the contract, upon which the procuring entity confiscates its bid bond, was controversy arising out of the performance of a procurement contract; as a result, this was a dispute that involved private rights rather than public law. Moreover, according to the first joint meeting of the presiding judges and judges of the Supreme Administrative Court in May 2008, the controversy surrounding the fact that the procuring entity, prior to awarding a contract, refused to return bid bonds on the ground that the contents of the tender documents submitted by different tenderers showed a substantial and unusual connection pursuant to Subparagraph 5, Paragraph 1, Article 50 of the Government Procurement Act and consequently the suppliers engaged in activities in breach of laws or regulations which impair the fairness of the procurement, as set forth in Subparagraph 8, Paragraph 2, Article 31 of the same Act, involved public law. In both of the abovementioned cases where there was controversy over the confiscation of bid bonds, the Supreme Administrative Court distinguished public law controversies from private law controversies based on the fact that whether an injunction to award contracts has been issued. Such distinction has caused the choice between administrative litigation and civil litigation for settling a dispute to be made on the basis of the issuance of an injunction to award contracts (or the effectiveness of a contract). Is such distinction an inevitable outcome of the two-level theory adopted for government procurement? Is it appropriate to come to a decision based on when an injunction to award contracts is issued (or the contract comes into effect) regardless of the reason for confiscation? It is necessary to clarify these issues as the confiscation of bid bonds affects the scope of protection of people’s property rights and the choice of remedies.
510 1 $a A Study on the Controversy Surrounding Confiscation and Collection of Bid Bonds in Regard to Government Procurement $z eng
610 0 $a 公法行為 $a 私經濟行為 $a 雙階理論 $a 沒收押標金 $a 決標處分 $a 裁罰性不利處分 $a 管制性不利處分 $a 拒絕往來廠商
610 1 $a actions under public law $a private economic actions $a the two-level theory $a confiscation of bid bonds $a injunction to award contracts $a adverse actions of a punitive nature $a adverse actions of a regulatory nature $a debarred suppliers
681 $a 008M/0019 $b 380101 4053 $v 2007年版
700 1 $a 李 $b 振宏 $4 撰 $3 700813
712 0 2 $a 國立高雄大學 $b 法律學系碩士班 $3 166036
801 0 $a tw $b NUK $c 20150310 $g CCR
856 7 $z 電子資源 $2 http $u http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/04454951151009286427