廣電行政監理的司法審查 —中視及中天案行政處分附款之判決研究

摘要通傳會在中視及中天董事長、董事、監察人、總經理變更申請案的行政處分加上附款，中視和中天提起行政訴訟，訴請撤銷附款。本案是通傳會第一次在董監負責人變更申請案的許可處分加上附款，在申請案審查時，通傳會因為原因相同，而合併一體考量，通傳會認為本案雖然形式上是董監負責人變更申請，但實質上卻是股權移轉，而進行實質審查；經過聽證程序後，分別在中視和中天的董監負責人變更的許可處分加上附款，兩家公司的附款內容也大同小異。中視及中天不服行政處分附附款，於是提起行政訴訟，而進入到行政法院的訴訟過程，分成中視和中天兩個獨立的判決過程，最後判決結果，中視是附款全部撤銷，中天則是部分附款撤銷。本文將整理比較法院在審理過程中，對於董監負責人變更的行政處分附款，容許性和合法性的裁判標準和裁判理由，以期對廣電行政監理的司法審查多一些了解。而司法審查結果，將行政處分定性為裁量處分，附款容許性通過司法審查的把關；另外在附款合法性的把關上，法院審查從不當連結禁止原則與比例原則、平等原則、明確性原則，一一檢視，最後結果判決雖然有異有同，但不論是從尊重獨立機關通傳會的預測評估判斷角度，或從通傳會應負更高舉證責任的層面，法院對與附款合法性的見解，不僅有助釐清本案事實關係和法律上的爭議，畫下附款合法性的防線，也是通訊傳播管制行政裁量，在司法審查實務上的重要參考。

關鍵字

媒體併購；結構管制；附款；媒體多元化

並列摘要

Abstract The National Communications Commission (NCC) added incidental provisions to the dispositions of the applications for the permission to change the Chairman of the Board, the Directors of the Board, the Supervisors, and the Persons in charge of CTV and CTITV. Both CTV and CTITV had filed administrative proceedings for the revocation of the incidental provisions. This case was the first time that the NCC had ever added incidental provisions to the dispositions for the permission to change the persons in charge of the Board of Directors and the Supervisory Board. During the review of the applications, the NCC combined the two applications because they had been submitted for the same reasons. The NCC conducted a substantive examination on the case based on the suspicion that the case was a transfer of equity disguised as an application for a change of persons in charge of the Board of Directors and Supervisory Board. After the hearing proceedings, the NCC added incidental provisions to the dispositions for the permission to change the persons in charge of the Board of Directors and Supervisory Board of CTV and CTITV, and the contents of the incidental provisions of the two companies were also primarily the same with minor differences. Both CTV and CTITV objected to the act of adding incidental provisions to administrative dispositions, and thus filed administrative proceedings. When the case proceeded to the administrative courts, the case was divided into two independent decision processes, one for CTV, and the other for CTITV. In accordance with the final decision, all of the incidental provisions of CTV were revoked while CTITV's incidental provisions were partially revoked. In order to gain a better understanding of the judicial review of the administrative supervision for radio and television, this paper shall compare the courts’ permissibility on the incidental provisions to the administrative dispositions and the judging standards and reasons when determining the legality of the incidental provisions during the trials for this case.