| 摘要: | 國家通訊傳播委員會(下稱通傳會)為我國第一個依據中央行政機關組織基準法設立之獨立機關，是朝野高度共識下的政府改造方案，也符合國際潮流與趨勢，並開啟了我國通訊傳播監理的新頁。惟通傳會從設立初期即遭遇委員選任方式爭議、訴願管轄機關爭議等風波，通傳會所為之管制監督措施也屢屢成為大眾關注的焦點，如「數位中介服務法」草案、中天新聞台撤照案、鏡電視董監事變更及上架案等，除引發社會大眾討論外，不少案件也進入行政救濟程序中，行政法院對通傳會行政決定之審查密度為何?人民是否獲得有效的權利救濟?通傳會保有多少決定空間?
本文於第二章先介紹判斷餘地理論於我國之發展及所建立之司法審查，並提出判斷餘地所面臨之難題，如承認判斷餘地的依據為何?是否有統一可操作的標準?承認判斷餘地後行政法院又應如何審查?接著於第三章探討德國及美國如何對行政行為進行司法審查，包含德國之判斷餘地學說與實務發展、美國聯邦最高法院有關法律解釋司法審查之標竿判決以及對通訊傳播事件之司法審查；再於第四章觀察我國行政法院對通傳會在「衛星廣播電視事業執照換照」案件、「基本頻道變更」案件及「節目內容管理」案件之判決是否承認判斷餘地及審查密度，最後提出司法審查通訊傳播事件之建議。
;The National Communications Commission (NCC), the inaugural independent agency in Taiwan created in accordance with the Basic Code Governing Central Administrative Agencies Organizations, represents a pivotal outcome of government reform initiative. The establishment of the NCC reflects a broad consensus among both the ruling and opposition parties, heralding a new era in the oversight of communications and broadcasting within the country. However, since its inception, the NCC has faced a number of controversies, including the matter of who shall have the authority over personnel affairs regarding members of the NCC, and disputes over the jurisdiction of administrative appeals. Meanwhile, the regulatory and supervisory measures taken by the NCC have also been the focus of public attention. For example, the draft “Digital Intermediary Services Law”, the revocation of the broadcasting license of the CTi News, and the approval of the launch of Mirror TV, etc. In addition to triggering public discussion, many of these cases have also entered into the process of administrative remedies.
As these cases undergo judicial review, pivotal questions emerge: What is the extent of judicial oversight over the NCC′s administrative actions? Are effective remedies available to the public? And how much discretionary power does the NCC retain?
In Chapter Two, this article delves into the evolution of administrative discretion in Taiwan and the corresponding judicial review system. It highlights challenges faced by administrative discretion, exploring issues such as the rationale behind it, the existence of unified operational standards, and how administrative courts should approach reviews in cases involving administrative discretion.
Moving on to Chapter Three, the article explores the judicial review practices of administrative actions in Germany and the United States. This section covers the doctrine and practical development of administrative discretion in Germany, along with landmark decisions by the United States Supreme Court regarding the judicial review of legal interpretations and cases in communications and broadcasting.
Finally, in Chapter Four, this article examines the judgments of our country′s administrative courts in cases involving the NCC, such as the "Satellite Broadcasting and Television Business License Renewal" case, the "Basic Channel Change" case, and the "Program Content Management" case, to determine whether the court acknowledge administrative discretion and the intensity of judicial review. Ultimately, the article puts forward recommendations for the judicial review of communication and broadcasting cases. |
