我國公務人員權利救濟制度之研究─以大法官釋字第785號為核心;A Study on the Rights Relief System of Civil Servants in Taiwan : Focus on Chief Justice′s Interpretation No. 785

NCUIR > College of Hakka Studies > Graduate Institute of Law and Government > Electronic Thesis & Dissertation > Item 987654321/83498

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/83498

Title:	我國公務人員權利救濟制度之研究─以大法官釋字第785號為核心;A Study on the Rights Relief System of Civil Servants in Taiwan : Focus on Chief Justice′s Interpretation No. 785
Authors:	陳威毓;Chen, Wei-Yu
Contributors:	法律與政府研究所
Keywords:	公務人員
Date:	2020-08-20
Issue Date:	2020-09-02 15:44:15 (UTC+8)
Publisher:	國立中央大學
Abstract:	本論文以大法官解釋第785 號為例，探討我國公務人員權利救濟制度，包括公務人員保障法第25條及第77條規定之復審及申訴程序，討論現行制度產生之爭議，並參考德國、日本兩國公務人員權利救濟制度，試圖找出符合我國國情的解決之道。我國先前行政訴訟司法實務上，向來受到大法官解釋第187號、第201號、第243號、第266號、第298號、第312號、第323號、第338號等解釋意旨影響，認若未改變公務員身分關係、不直接影響服公職權利等措施，屬保障法第77條第1項所指之工作條件或管理措施，公務員僅得依申訴、再申訴程序尋求救濟等意見之拘束。實務上常見爭議為對於人事行政處分的認定標準不一，及侵權之非人事行政處分救濟途徑受限等。大法官解釋第785號聲請原因案件「公務人員訴訟權保障及外勤消防人員勤休方式與超勤補償案」，對於公務人員權利救濟制度之突破頗具代表性。該號解釋文揭示「公務人員得否提起行政訴訟之關鍵，在於是否具事實上侵權之可能，而不在於身分」，故公務人員之權利受機關管理措施或工作條件侵害，仍可受到救濟，推翻以往大法官見解。惟大法官開放公務人員訴訟權保障範圍，實務上執行之標準，仍有待行政法院判例補充。本論文以德國和日本公務人員救濟制度為借鏡，檢討目前復審標的之認定標準，並對申訴、再申訴程序之修正提出建議，以落實公務人員權利保障。 ;This thesis takes the Chief Justice′s Interpretation No. 785 as an example to discuss the rights relief system of civil servants in China, including the review and appeal procedures stipulated in Article 25 and Article 77 of the Civil Servants Protection Act, discuss the disputes arising from the current system, and refer to Germany, The rights relief systems for public servants in Japan and Japan are trying to find a solution that suits our national conditions. The judicial practice of previous administrative litigation in our country has always been influenced by the interpretation intent of the Chief Justice′s Interpretation No. 187, No. 201, No. 243, No. 266, No. 298, No. 312, No. 323, and No. 338. If measures such as the status of civil servants are not changed, and the right to serve public office is not directly affected, it is the working conditions or management measures referred to in Article 77, Paragraph 1 of the Protection Law, and civil servants can only seek remedies in accordance with the appeal and re-appeal procedures. Common controversies in practice are the different standards for determining personnel administrative sanctions, and the limitation of non-personnel administrative sanctions for infringement. The Justice′s explanation of the Reasons for Claiming Case No. 785 "Prosecution of Public Servants′ Litigation Rights and Field Firefighters′ Duty and Overwork Compensation Cases" is quite representative of the breakthrough of the public servants′ rights relief system. The interpretation document reveals that "the key to whether a public servant can file an administrative lawsuit lies in the possibility of actual infringement, not in identity." Therefore, if the rights of public servants are violated by administrative measures or working conditions, they can still receive relief. Overturn previous judges′ opinions. However, the justices have opened up the scope of protection of civil servants′ litigation rights, and the standards for implementation in practice still need to be supplemented by the administrative court′s precedent. This thesis uses the German and Japanese civil servant relief systems as a reference to review the current identification standards of the re-examination targets, and proposes the amendment of appeals and re-appeal procedures to implement the protection of public servants′ rights.
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of Law and Government] Electronic Thesis & Dissertation

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
index.html		0Kb	HTML	272	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...