司法院大法官於釋字第785號解釋中闡明公務人員與一般人民皆受憲法第16條所規定之訴訟權保障，不得因是否為行政處分而有例外，解除我國公務人員受特別權力關係理論之束縛。 我國之公務員法爭議中，職務調動案件數量甚多，雖目前已不再以行政處分為公務人員行使訴訟權之判斷依據，惟是否已提供完備的保障？故釐清我國公務人員職務調動之類型區分、程序規定、法律性質與救濟途徑仍有其重要性。 本文以公務人員職務調動制度為主，並與日本之公務人員制度為比較，就二國職務調動制度予以分析。本文擬探究我國關於職務調動法律規範是否有不完備？相對我國，日本是否就職務調動規範與保障較為周全？而我國是否能得以借鑒參考？其公務人員職務調動之類型、法律性質與救濟途徑究係為何，與我國有何相異之處？本文希望藉由比較分析二國制度，忝為日後修法提供參考方向。 ;In Interpretation No. 785, the Grand Justices stated that public servants and ordinary civil are protected by the litigation right stipulated in Article 16 of the Constitution, shouldn′t have exception because of whether it is administrative disposition, and removing public servants from the theory of special power relationship. Among the civil servant law disputes in our country, there are a numerous of transfer of duties cases. Although the administrative disposition is no longer the basis for judging the exercise of litigation rights by public servants, has it provided complete protection? Therefore, it is still important to clarify the types, the nature, the procedural regulations and the administrative remedies provisions of the transfer of duties of public servants. This article intends to explore whether there are incomplete laws and regulations on transfer of duties in Taiwan? In Comparisons with Taiwan, does Japan have more comprehensive regulations and guarantees for public servants′ transfer of duties? Can Japan be used for reference for revisions of the law? What is Japan′s public servants′ transfer of duties, the legal nature, and the administrative remedies? What are the differences with Taiwan? This article hopes to provide a reference for future revisions of the law by comparing and analyzing the public servants′ transfer of duties systems of Taiwan and Japan.
