| Abstract: | 在暫時權利保護體系中，相較於保全程序源自於民事訴訟，停止執行是行政訴訟上的特色，旨在防止因行政處分之執行而發生難於回復之損害。在停止執行制度「原則不停止、例外停止」與「原則停止、例外不停止」的兩種立法模式中，法國可謂是我國仿日本所採之第一種模式的先驅、也是此一模式在制度改革路上的先行者。依本文之研究，在法國行政訴訟法上，不僅不停止執行原則是立兩世紀而不墜之基本法則，且相配套的停止執行程序與日本和我國現制之間有許多相似之處，但終因運行不力而在2000年經歷重大改革；改革後的新制仍維持不停止執行原則，但放寬聲請停止執行之實體要件、創設因應極端緊急之新程序、建立簡易快速之審理機制、強化法官之禁制權力，在相當程度內轉型成為保障人民權益的有用武器。依本文之觀察和分析，原則不停止與原則停止兩種模式的形成或擇取，與各該國行政訴訟的理念和設計有關；法國行政訴訟向來側重「合法性控制」，惟為合乎保障人民權益的時代要求，亦須在堅守不停止執行原則下，扭轉以往過於保全行政效率的失衡狀態；我國行政訴訟既仿德國採「權利保護」模式，倘若基於行政效率之考量而不欲改採停止執行原則，更應在停止執行程序的改造上大步向前。
In contrast to the injunctive procedure deriving from civil litigation, the institution of suspension from execution is a feature of administrative remedies, aiming to prevent irreparable damages from enforcing administrative decisions. This article focuses on the institution of suspension from execution in French administrative litigation law and finds that, between the two legislative models of suspension from execution in principle or on exception, the French law is not only the forerunner but the pioneer of institutional reform of the latter, which the Japanese and Taiwanese law systems adopt.
According to our research, the principle of non-suspension of execution due to litigations has been a fundamental rule in French administrative litigation law for more than two centuries, and the accompanying procedure of“sursisàexécution”has numerous similar traits to the current Japanese and Taiwanese law systems. Nonetheless, the institution underwent a major reform in 2000 because of its ineffectiveness in practice. The current version of the suspension from execution system remains based on the principle of non-suspension of execution due to litigations. Still, it relaxed the condition to its claim, created a new procedure for extreme urgencies, established a simple and rapid trial mechanism, and intensified the powers of the judges; thus, to a certain extent, the institution has transformed into a practical weapon to safeguard the rights of the people.
The author argues that the choice between the two legislative models–whether adopting the principle of non-suspension of execution or not, is related to the philosophy and the institutional design of administrative remedies of every country. Despite the French administrative litigation law known for its emphasis on the control of legality, it has adapted to the worldwide trend of intensifying the procedural guarantees of the people. On the contrary, our administrative litigation system inherited the German model, which emphasizes the safeguarding of people’s rights; hence, even if we do not wish to adopt the principle of suspension of execution, referring to the concerns of administrative efficiency, we should make a significant step forward in the reform of our legal procedures concerning the suspension from execution. |
