| 摘要: | 近年我國最高行政法院行政訴訟案件每年終結件數呈現下降趨勢，但援引行政訴訟法第251條第2項之判決件數卻有顯著增加情形，顯示該項規定之援引有漸獲重視之現象；另一方面，中國大陸近年亦增加對行政訴訟第二審程序相關事項之重視。故本研究以行政訴訟第二審法院調查範圍為中心，依海峽兩岸各自行政訴訟第二審制度之特質，及兩岸司法判決資料庫不同功能特性進行統計與探究，以瞭解我國行政訴訟法第251條第2項規定於實務運用之現況，及中國大陸行政訴訟第二審案件之整體樣貌，進而比較我國與中國大陸行政訴訟第二審制度之重要差異。
研究結果發現：（一）海峽兩岸於行政訴訟上訴制度中，就統一法令見解功能、法律審與事實審定位、是否強制委任訴訟代理人、書面審理與開庭審理原則、審理時間及更審次數限制、程序規範詳盡程度等面向上均有不同；（二）探究我國行政訴訟法第251條第2項規定及援引情形，可發現僅少數法官善於發揮運用該項之規定，而透過一則BOT案補償爭議判決，顯示該項規定有其正面價值，但亦可能產生之爭議；（三）探究大陸行政訴訟第二審現況，可知大陸行政訴訟第二審案件數量主要集中於中級人民法院及高級人民法院，並以數種爭議案由為主，且自1999年後第二審改判比率整體呈下降趨勢。而透過一則商標登記爭議判決，突顯現行大陸第二審法院就案件全面進行事實審與法律審尚屬必要。
最後，本研究謹擬具下列建議：（1）最高行政法院採法律審之理由依據宜適時檢討強化；（2）短期宜採取適當措施減少法官彼此間就行政訴訟法第251條第2項規定援引頻率之落差；（3）長期可研議同步修正行政訴訟法第244條及第251條第2項之規定；（4）借鑑中國大陸判決檢索網站設計優點，強化我國判決檢索系統功能。
In recent years, the number of closed-cases in the Supreme Administrative Court declines per year in Taiwan. On the contrary, the cases quoted Paragraph 2, Article 251 of the Administrative Litigation Act increases significantly, which shows the judges pay more and more attention to this provision. At the same time, the judicial community in mainland China also pays more attention to the issues related to the second instance of administrative litigation than before. Therefore, in accordance of the different features of administrative litigation constitutions and the functions of judicial decision databases in cross-strait, this study focuses on the investigation scope of the administrative court in the second instance. This study researchs the application of Paragraph 2, Article 251 of the Administrative Litigation Act in Taiwan, describes the overall appearance of the second instance of administrative litigation in mainland China, and compares the important differences of the second instance constitutions of administrative litigation between Taiwan and mainland China.
The results show that: (1) Comparing the regulations of the second instance in the administrative litigation between Taiwan and mainland China, there are some differences such as: the function of unified legal opinions, trial on application of law or trial on matters of fact, the principle of trial by documents or by oral arguments, limitation of trial period and number of retrial, the detailed level of procedural norms. (2) In Taiwan, only a few judges will quote the provision of Paragraph 2, Article 251 of the Administrative Litigation Act in their judgments. And through a discussion of a BOT compensation dispute case, it shows that the provision has its positive value, but may also be controversial. (3) In mainland China, the second instance cases of administrative litigation are mainly judged by the intermediate people's courts and higher people's courts. Most of such cases dispute on only several specific issues, and the overall rate of reverse result declines since 1999. And through a discussion of a trademark registration dispute case, it shows the necessity that the appellate court conducts trial on both application of law and matters of fact.
Finally, this study provides the following suggestions: (1) The reasons that the supreme administrative court only conducts trial on application of law should be strengthened and reviewed timely. (2) The Judicial Yuan should appropriate short-term measures to reduce the gap among judges in quoting Paragraph 2, Article 251 of the Administrative Litigation Act. (3) In the long term, the Judicial Yuan may consider to amend Article 244 and Paragraph 2, Article 251 of the Administrative Litigation Act. (4) Learning the advantages of mainland China's judgment search website to improve the function of judgment search system in Taiwan. |
