許育典、吳俊青

Dr. Yue-Dian Hsu, Jun-Chin Wu

消費者債務清理條例、行政執行法、禁奢條款、禁止命令、基本權、執行效能、香港破產條例、深圳經濟特區個人破產條例、美國聯邦破產法典

Consumer Debt Settlement Ordinance, Administrative Enforcement Law, Anti-Sumptuary Clauses, Prohibitory Orders, Fundamental Rights, Enforcement Effectiveness, Hong Kong Bankruptcy Ordinance, Shenzhen Special Economic Zone Personal Bankruptcy Ordinance, United States Bankruptcy Code

立法院於民國99年1月12日參酌消費者債務清理條例第89條禁奢條款的規定，增訂行政執行法第17條之1禁止命令的規定，在比較法上，舉凡英國、美國、德國、日本、奧地利及新加坡等國的強制執行法均無禁奢條款的立法設計，應屬我國獨創的立法。本文除介紹禁止命令的規範內容及救濟途徑外，擬針對以下重點進行探討：禁止命令的限制範圍、執行方法及違反的法律效果可能干預義務人何種憲法上保障的基本權？破產法制的禁奢條款所欲達成的立法目的及法律效果與行政執行法是否相容？義務人違反禁止命令時，立法免除行政執行分署舉證證明義務人「顯有履行義務之可能，故不履行」的義務，是否合理？奢華生活費用由第三人財產所提供也視為義務人「顯有履行義務之可能，故不履行」，是否符合強制執行的法理？義務人「生活逾越一般人通常程度」的奢侈浪費判斷標準為何？禁奢條款在執行實務上是否有助於提升執行效能及維護公平正義？禁止命令限制範圍的規定是否符合實際社會現況？比較法上，香港破產條例、深圳經濟特區個人破產條例及美國聯邦破產法典有關禁奢條款的規定，有何可供我國未來修法參考之處？最後針對行政執行法禁奢條款的修法及禁奢條款於行政執行實務上的運用，提出具體的建議。

On January 12, 99 years of the Republic of China , the Legislative Yuan took into account the prohibition of luxury clauses in Article 89 of the Consumer Debt Settlement Ordinance and added the prohibition of orders in Article 17-1 of the Administrative Enforcement Act. In terms of comparative law, the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, The enforcement laws of Japan, Austria, Singapore and other countries do not have the legislative design of anti-sumptuary clauses, which should be China’s original legislation. In addition to introducing the normative content and remedies of prohibitive orders, this article intends to discuss the following key points: What kind of constitutionally guaranteed basic rights of the obligor may be interfered with by the restrictive scope, execution methods and legal effects of violation of prohibitive orders? Are the legislative purposes and legal effects intended to be achieved by the anti-sumptuary provisions of the bankruptcy legal system compatible with the administrative enforcement law? When the obligor violates the prohibition order, is it reasonable to legislate to exempt the Administrative Enforcement Branch from the obligation to provide evidence to prove that the obligor “shows the possibility of performing the obligation and therefore fails to perform it”? Even if the luxury living expenses are provided by the property of a third party, it is also considered that the obligor “shows the possibility of fulfilling the obligation, so he fails to perform”. Is this consistent with the legal theory of enforcement? What is the criterion for judging extravagance and waste when the obligor “lives beyond the ordinary level of ordinary people”? Does the enforcement of anti-sumptuary clauses help improve enforcement efficiency and safeguard fairness and justice? Does the prohibition order limit the scope of the prohibition order conform to the actual social situation? In terms of comparative law, what are the provisions of the Hong Kong Bankruptcy Ordinance, the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone Personal Bankruptcy Ordinance and the United States Federal Bankruptcy Code’s anti-sumptuary clauses that can serve as reference for my country’s future law revisions? Finally, specific suggestions are put forward regarding the revision of the anti-sumptuary clauses of the Administrative Enforcement Law and the application of the anti-sumptuary clauses in administrative enforcement practice.