透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.22.248.208
  • 學位論文

菸害防制法吸菸場所限制之重要爭議問題研究

The Major Controversies about Where Tobacco Use Are Restricted of Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act

指導教授 : 李建良

摘要


為求全面瞭解我國菸害防制法吸菸場所限制所面臨之重要爭議問題,本文分由吸菸場所限制之介紹及立法透析、管制規範之檢討、行政調查、中央與地方吸菸場所限制、行政救濟等五個面向探討我國菸害防制法吸菸場所之限制中之重要爭議問題。 首先,於緒論中說明本文之研究動機、研究範圍及研究方法,因菸害防制法自民國(以下同)86年施行至今已達15年之久,期間因有許多窒礙或不足之處而推動了修法,新法亦自98年1月11日開始實施,本文將菸害防制法中針對吸菸場所限制管制之正當性及基本權衝突等複雜又抽象的議題,暫且放在一邊,筆者更想討論的是在吸菸場所限制這部分,尤其涉及對於許多私領域的限制,行政機關真的管得著嗎?針對吸菸場所廣泛的限制是否具有強制執行的可能性?是否屬透過執行機關可以發揮功能的事務?故本文之研究範圍不及於對於菸害管制之適法性、吸菸者與非吸菸者基本權衝突等憲法層次之爭議,主要在於法律之解釋及適用之行政法層次。 於吸菸場所限制之介紹章節中,對於菸害防制法有關吸菸場所限制之條文逐條逐項的檢討,並提出對於規範本身的疑問,進一步觀察由世界衛生組織(WHO)所簽署之菸草控制框架公約(FCTC)及許多國外相關之立法體系及立法例,尋找解決我國菸害防制法規範爭議之參考對象。 於管制規範之檢討一章中嘗試將上述所提出之問題,透過法律解釋及適用,歸納整理出吸菸場所限制之適用原則,以突破菸害防制法吸菸場所限制規範本身明確性不足及各類場所間衝突矛盾之缺失。 又將實務上吸菸場所限制強制執行時執法機關所實際面臨之問題,整理歸納,並嘗試找出可能之解釋方法及賦予執法機關強制力之原理原則,以強化吸菸場所限制執行之可能性。 針對各類型吸菸場所限制之寬嚴不一問題,不僅發生於立法院三讀通過的菸害防制法中,地方基於地方自治權得否另外設定不同寬嚴尺度之限制?首先,涉及菸害防制事務本身之性質,究屬委辦或自治事項?地方所為之公告或經議會通過之自治條例應遵守如何之界限?較中央法律更為嚴格之限制是否即抵觸法律?得否以自治條例另定違反吸菸場所限制之罰則以及罰則種類是否適法? 再由人民對於行政機關所為處分不服而提出之案例中,整理歸納並檢討司法機關對於吸菸場所限制各項管制之見解,以提供執法機關適用菸害防制法之參考。 最後,本文嘗試以法律規範之體系整理實務上執行菸害防制法所面臨之爭議,並提出解決之道,除提出研究之發現外,並建議有鑑於修法歷程序之繁雜及困難,應先於行政裁量得以發揮之空間內尋求突破,或透過地方立法權及行政權加以補充,惟對於仍受嚴格意義法律保留原則之人民基本權限制則只能回歸對於立法權之期待,並提供修法之建議。

並列摘要


In order to realize the significant issues about where tobacco use are restricted of Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act, the thesis analysis from five aspects, including the process of lawmaking, the control regulation, administrative investigation, the restricted space of tobacco use and administrative remedy procedures. The chapter one is the introduction which describe primarily the purpose and motivation of the thesis, the methods and the structure of the article. In the second chapter, the author introduces the structure of The Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act in the Republic of China (R.O.C), the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and many other foreign regulations about the prohibited smoking spaces. The third chapter discuss the main predicaments to enforce Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act. The Article 15 and 16 of Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act list the prohibited smoking places; according to article 19 of Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act, the competent authorities of the cities with provincial status and at the county (city) level shall periodically send personnel to inspect the places listed in Articles 15 and 16. However, except the places that open to the public, such as other leisure entertainment locations and other business locations for public consumption, there are also many prohibited smoking places that are not open to the public, such as indoor workplaces jointly used by three or more persons. Therefore the competent authorities are hard to send personnel to inspect those private places. The essay attempts to study if it’s necessary giving specific kind of power to the competent authorities to enter all prohibited smoking places including those private places. Another major difficulties about where tobacco use are restricted of Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act is the authority divide between central government and the local governments. In the chapter five, we observe the past judgments of the appeal committee and courts to conclude their attitude about the issues discussing above. In conclusion, the thesis try to provide the solution of those major issues via the explanation by the Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act competent authority or the process of lawmaking.

參考文獻


林谷蓉(2005),《中央與地方權限衝突》,五南圖書出版公司。
陳文貴(2009),〈行政調查與行政檢查及法律搜索之法律關係〉,《法令月刊》,第60卷,第3期,頁67-87。
劉士豪(2008),〈勞動派遣的法律關係─從國際勞工組織第181號工約談起〉,《臺灣國際法季刊》,第5卷第3期,頁81-130。
許宏吉(2006),〈行政調查應有之內涵與趨向〉,《法令月刊》,第57卷第8期。
魏琳珊(2009),〈我國菸害防制法關於「吸菸場所限制」之合憲性問題探討〉,國立臺灣大學法律學院法律所碩士論文。

被引用紀錄


洪嘉翎(2017)。台灣公共衛生規制之法政策研究:以電子煙為例〔碩士論文,臺北醫學大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0007-1707201723444000

延伸閱讀