大法官釋字第604號解釋之研究－行政罰法上“單一行為”概念之探討

CCUR > College of Law > Department of Law & Graduate Institute of Law > journal articles > Item 987654321/19427

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://irlib.pccu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/19427

Title:	大法官釋字第604號解釋之研究－行政罰法上“單一行為”概念之探討
Authors:	劉建宏
Contributors:	法律系
Keywords:	行政罰法第24條道路交通管理處罰條例第85之1條釋字第604號解釋釋字第503號解釋單一行為自然一行為法律上一行為繼續違法行為
Date:	2007-12
Issue Date:	2011-03-18 15:19:43 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	違規停車行爲之性質係「繼續違法行爲」，其爲「法律上一行爲」，仍屬單一行爲。釋字第604 號解釋肯定立法者得基於交通法規之特性，自行以法律或授權行政機關以命令對「單一行爲」爲與行政罰法上通說見解不同之定義，將外觀上單一之違規停車行爲，以「每逾二小時」爲連續舉發之標準，切割爲數行爲，以達成多次處罰之目的。此一見解將單一之生活事件予以不自然的分割，並已實際上將行政罰法所揭櫫之「一行爲不二罰」原則，排除於交通法規之領域外。此外，亦與大法官於釋字第503號解釋中對於「單一行爲」之認定標準不符。是以學說上批評其爲過於遷就現行實務處理之解釋，產生論理上之矛盾。現行法律體系中行政罰法、行政執行法之相關規定，輔以行政實體法（道路交通管理處罰條例）裁罰額度之適度提高，即足以解決長時期違規停車之問題。立法者自行訂定標準，將性質上應屬「單一行爲」之違規停車行爲任意切割爲「多數行爲」，或許顧及個別正義，卻紊亂整體法律秩序。大法官釋字第604號解釋是否妥適，頗值商榷。 It's not doubtful for the Government to take suitable instruments (e.g. urban land consolidation) to carry out the so-called "integrated development strategy" in urban areas. However, there are many problems due to the financial gap. And more important matter is the issue of the "construction license". Recently, the issue mentioned above has becomes much more important because of the scope of administration discretion of relative authority in Taiwan. This article therefore focuses on the statutory control degree using § 17 of the "Urban Planning Act". After analyzing, the following can be proposed. The nature of parking violation is a "continuing illegal behavior" and a "legally single behavior." It is subject to the single behavior. The explanation No. 604 disagreed with the common opinion on the definition of "single behavior" in Administrative Punishment Act and confirmed that the legislators can make a law or authorize the administrative agency to make a regulation to define it based on the special character of traffic laws and regulations. To attain the goal of several punishments, this explanation divided one single behavior of parking violation into several behaviors by applying the punishing standard of two-hour overtime. This explanation divided a single daily behavior unnaturally and in practice, excluded the application of the principle of “prohibiting double punishment on one single behavior” in the field of traffic laws and regulations. In addition, this explanation also conflicted with the standard of defining single behavior presented in the explanation No. 503 of Grand Justice. Therefore, it was criticized by legal scholars that this explanation overly intends to resolve the problem in practice and led to the inconsistency in theory. In the current legal system, the related regulations in the Administrative Punishment Act and Administrative Enforcement Act and the proper increasing of punishment in the Road Traffic Punishment Act can be sufficient sources to resolve the problem of long-period parking violation. Legislators may concern the justice in individual case by making a standard which divides, in nature, single behavior of parking violation into several behaviors, but at the meantime they broken the legal system as a whole. It is doubtful that whether the explanation No. 604 of Grand Justice is appropriate.
Relation:	臺北大學法學論叢 64期 P.1-23
Appears in Collections:	[Department of Law & Graduate Institute of Law ] journal articles

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
index.html		0Kb	HTML	270	View/Open

Loading...