蔡志方

Tsai, Chih-Fang

擬制行政處分、職權撤銷、遲到之行政處分、適格之原告、 救濟種類

Fictitious Administrative Action, Abolishment ex Officio, Revocation or Changement ex Officio, Delayed Administrative Sanctions, Litigation Against Oneself, Legitimate Plaintiff, Kinds of Remedies

訴願法第1條與行政訴訟法第4條第1項規定之行政處分，是否包括擬制行政處分？如申請之案件，依法必須經聽證程序，是否將有所不同？如業經於構成擬制行政處分前或後舉行聽證程序者，是否將有所不同？本文認為，擬制行政處分無論係擬制核可或擬制駁回，均可能成為訴願與行政訴訟之程序標的，而其相對人或利害關係人訴權之有無與相關程序中之地位、救濟種類，亦會有所不同。
擬制處分之機關誰屬、成立與生效之始點為何，甚至有關機關能否於爭訟程序中加以撤銷與變更？擬制行政處分之存續期間為何？能否因遲到之行政處分而被替換？擬制行政處分之成立與否，以及是否有效，如何確認？德國聯邦行政程序法第42a條之立法例，似乎可以作為我國相關法制，特別是行政程序法是否增訂一般性規定之參考。
最後，在立法政策與行政實務上值得注意者，乃除應設法預防不肖公務員，為圖利特殊申請人，而故意讓申請案件逾期，並構成擬制核可外，申請人亦可能利用機關人力嚴重不足時，才以違背誠實信用原則之心態與方法，提出申請，以謀求擬制核可之取得，亦不能不防範！

Do the administrative action stipulated in Article 1 of the Administrative Appeal Law and Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Litigation Law includes the fictitious administrative action (as “faa” in following)? If the application case is subject to a hearing process according to law, will it be different? Will it be different if the
hearing procedure has been held before or after the “faa”? I believe that whether an “faa” is a fictitious approval or a fictitious rejection, it may become the procedural subject of appeals and administrative litigations, and the existence of the counterparty or interested party’s right to sue, as well as the status and type of relief in the relevant procedures, will also be different.
Who is the agency responsible for formulating the “faa”, what is the starting point of its establishment and effectiveness, and can the relevant agency be abolished ex officio or revoked or changed ex officio or during
litigation procedures? What is the duration of the “faa”? Can the “faa” be replaced due to a late administrative action for bein be made for that application? How to confirm whether the “faa” is established and effective? The legislation of Article 42a of the German Federal Administrative Procedure Act (VwVfG) seems to be a reference for our
country’s relevant legal system, especially whether to add general provisions to the Administrative Procedure Act.
Finally, what is worth noting in terms of legislative policy and administrative practice is that in addition to trying to prevent unscrupulous civil servants from deliberately letting the application case be overdue in order to benefit special applicants, which constitutes a fabricated approval, the applicant may also take advantage of the serious shortage of manpower in the agency to submit an application with a mentality and method that violates the principle of good faith, in order to seek to obtain fabricated approval, and we must take precautions!