English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113311/144292 (79%)
Visitors : 50922595      Online Users : 928
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/139592


    Title: 裁判憲法審查初探
    Preliminary Overview of the Judicialization of the Constitutional Review
    Authors: 楊子慧
    Contributors: 法學評論
    Keywords: 司法院大法官審理案件法;憲法訴訟法;基本權利救濟之憲法訴訟;憲法法庭;審查庭;裁判憲法審查;用盡救濟途徑;原則重要憲法意義;貫徹基本權利
    Constitutional Interpretation Procedure Act by the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan;Constitutional Procedure Act;Constitutional Procedure for Relief of Basic Rights;Constitutional Court;Review Court;Tribunal-based Review;Exhaustion of Remedial Approaches;Principles of Important Constitutional Meanings;Implementation of Basic Rights
    Date: 2020-03
    Issue Date: 2022-04-08 10:12:17 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 二○一九年初公布的我國憲法訴訟法之核心，在於引進德國裁判憲法審查制度。裁判憲法審查，意指人民於憲法上所保障之基本權利遭受公權力侵害，於符合用盡法院審級救濟途徑之要件，始得推導出人民針對確定終審法院裁判違憲得向聯邦憲法法院提起的一項憲法訴訟程序。裁判憲法審查於憲法訴訟程序面向，涉及人民訴請客體涵括國家公權力行為的法院裁判 ; 於憲法實體法面向，關涉聯邦憲法法院對於法院裁判進行實體違憲之審查範圍及審查標準，主要係憲法法院審判權與專業法院審判權間權限劃分問題。本文初步探究德國裁判憲法審查制度，主要闡明制度背景 ; 規範依據及法制內涵 ; 德國聯邦憲法法院實務運作衍生之爭議問題及其因應之道。文末評析我國憲法訴訟法相關規範，期為我國於二○二二年一月四日施行憲法訴訟新制之借鏡與參考。
    The Legislative Yuan passed the third reading of “the Constitutional Procedure Act” on December 18, 2018, which was promulgated by President Tsai on January 4, 2019. It was also announced that Article No. 95 of the Constitutional Procedure Act will be implemented three years after its official proclamation. Hence, the current system of Constitutional Interpretation Procedure exercised by the Justices of the Judicial Yuan will usher in a new era of constitutional review based on judicialization, adjudication, and tribunal-based systems. The core of the new system of the Constitutional Procedure is similar to the Constitution Review system in Germany in which the defining feature of the Constitutional Procedure in Germany is the “tribunal-based” Constitutional review. Although this term is not an official terminology in German empirical laws, practically speaking, such procedure originates from relevant regulations as they permit people to resort to the special constitutional litigation and appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court in light of the violation of their constitutional rights. Moreover, such procedure is of secondary in nature in that it is derived from the final judgment of a court in accordance with all levels and processes of judicial remedial processes that grant people to appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court for further Constitutional interpretation. This form of tribunal-based Constitutional review might appear to be a procedural approach only, but substantially its scope covers a wide range of issues. In terms of constitutional litigation procedure, the objects that people file appeals to include judicial actions embedded in the state’s public powers (court decisions). And in terms of the Constitutional substantive law approach, the scope and review criteria for the constitutional review of the court’s decision by the Federal Constitutional Court involve the division of jurisdiction between the judicial court and the jurisdiction of the professional court. This article preliminarily explores the tribunal-based constitutional review system in Germany to further elucidate its background, normative basis and its implications as well as the controversial issues arising from the practices of the German Federal Constitutional Court and its responses. In light of the practices and new systems of the Constitutional Procedure Act that will take effect on January 4th, 2022 in Taiwan, commentaries and suggestions are also addressed to provide new insights.
    Relation: 法學評論, 160, 143-208
    Data Type: article
    DOI 連結: https://doi.org/10.3966/102398202020030160003
    DOI: 10.3966/102398202020030160003
    Appears in Collections:[政大法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    15.pdf2327KbAdobe PDF2247View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback