競爭者訴訟之研究 以經濟行政法上之補貼為例

A Study on Competitor lawsuit: Focus on the Subvention of Economic Administrative Law

魯忠翰(Chung-Han Lu)

指導教授 ： 林明昕

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2016年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201603503

摘要

當國家以補貼達成行政任務時，因為行為形式選擇自由，國家可能於單一的補貼關係中透過公法、私法、甚至混合公私法手段完成補貼。在我國行政法學之法展中，對於補貼之討論，多集中於補貼申請人(相對人)被否准時如何提起救濟，進而有行政私法理論與雙階理論產生。換句話說，過去在討論補貼時，國內文獻少有以競爭者角度討論補貼。其次，對於競爭者訴訟之討論，也多集中在公務人員法、政府採購法、促參法之訴訟權能與訴訟類型，惟對於因為補貼而產生之競爭關係卻少有討論。故本文之主軸，即討論補貼與競爭者訴訟之交集，並類型化不同補貼關係、不同訴訟目的下，競爭者應如何選擇訴訟類型、如何選定參加類型、如何進行暫時權利保護。

就單一行為所形成之補貼關係，例如以單一行政處分或行政契約給予補貼，競爭者對於他人之受益處分提起訴訟較無爭議，惟競爭者對於他人之行政契約提起救濟，則會牽涉到行政程序法第140條以及能否以基本權利作為民法第71條禁止規定之問題。其次，以複數行為形成補貼關係，例如透過前階段行政處分後階段私法契約給予補貼，前後階段之行為將涉及有因性與無因性之不同見解，也會連帶地影響訴訟類型選擇。採取有因說之見解，前階段行為遭廢棄，連帶影響後階段行為之效力，救濟上較為單純。反之，在無因性之觀點下，廢棄前階段行政處分則不影響後階段私法契約之效力，那麼競爭者對於後階段之私法契約，將產生第三人對他人私法契約救濟之難題。

就訴訟參加而言，因為我國行政訴訟參加之立法過度仰賴民事訴訟，特別是專門處理第三人效力行政處分之必要參加，其法律依據便有行政訴訟法第41條、或是第42條之爭議。就參加人之權限而言，完全準用民事訴訟法，便無法反映出行政訴訟參加制度之特殊性。就暫時權利保護制度而言，較有爭議者為假處分。假處分依照現行法可分為保全假處分與定暫時狀態之假處分。然而兩種假處分並非互斥概念，故在個案適用上將可能無法明確切割。以上種種問題，階有賴逐一討論，抽絲剝繭，以排列出各種可能情況。

關鍵字

補貼 ； 競爭者訴訟 ； 無因性 ； 第三人效力行政處分 ； 訴訟參加 ； 暫時權利保護 ； 行政程序法第140條 ； 民法第71條 ； 行政訴訟法第116條 ； 行政訴訟法第298條。

並列摘要

Due to freedom of the selection on types of law, government may give subvention under applying public law, private law, even both to accomplish administrative mission in a single subvention relationship. The discussion of subvention in development of administrative law in Taiwan, mostly focused on how applicant of subvention (the other party) bring appeal and litigation, and evolved administrative private law theory and dual-stage theory. In other words, in the past the essays in Taiwan rarely discussed subvention from competitor’s perspective. Secondly, instead of discussing comptitor relationship caused by subvention, the discussion of competitor lawsuit generally concentrated on litigation capabilities and litigation types of Public Service Regulations, Government Procurement Act, Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects. Therefore, this article mainly discusses the intersection of subvention and competitor lawsuit, and classifies the legal procedure under different relationships of subvention and different perposes of litigation, which interprets how competitors select litigation types, choose intervention types and execute temporary remedy.

In terms of the subvention relationship formed by a single act, such as giving subvention under an administrative disposition or an administrative contract, competitors have relatively fewer disputes on other’s beneficial administrative disposition while claiming remedy over other’s administrative contract involves article 140 of Administrative Procedure Law and article 71 of Civil Law, which point out whether the basic right could be as a reason of prohibitive provision.

Further more, subvention relationships formed by multiple acts, such as giving subvention under previous administrative disposition and later private contract, which has different opinions when it comes to whether the invalid previous act would influence the effect of the later act or not, and further influences litigation type selection. Assumed that the revokation of previous administrative disposition would not affect the later private contract, and it will bring about how competitors claim remedy over the later act. Therefore we can discover that when the subvention relationship contains more acts, should take more concern about whether the acts would affect others mutually, and further influences litigation type selection.

並列關鍵字

Subvention ； Abstraction principle ； Intervention ； Execute Temporary Remedy ； article 140 of Administrative Procedure Law ； article 71 of Civil Law ； article 116 of Administrative Litigation Act ； article 298 of Administrative Litigation Act.

參考文獻

吳信樺（2011），《憲法釋論》。

陳清秀（2011），《行政訴訟法》，4版。

陳榮宗、林慶苗（2010），《民事訴訟法(上)》，7版。

陳彥霖（2015），《行政爭訟與國家賠償之交錯－以第一次權利救濟優先原則為中心》，國立臺灣大學法律研究所碩士論文。

詹祐維（2015），《行政處分對行政機關與行政法院之拘束效力－兼論行政處分「構成要件效力｣》，國立臺灣大學法律研究所碩士論文。