營業自由之保障及其限制－最高行政法院2005年11月22日庭長法官聯席會議決評釋

Protection and Restrictions of the Freedom of Business-Comment on the Resolution of the Judge-Council of the Supreme administrative Court on November 22, 2005

蔡宗珍(Tzung-Jen Tsai)

《臺大法學論叢》 35卷3期 (2006/05) Pp. 277-321

https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ.2006.35.03.04

摘要

營業自由是職業自由的一環，受到憲法工作權條款之保障，其保護領域應包含創業自由興營業活動自由。國家權力對營業由所爲之限制，應合於憲法第23條之規定，其中基本權干預之法律保留要件原則上雖不禁止立法者立法授權以命令爲細部規定，但爲授權之法律應符合授權明確性要求。在憲法基本權保障架構下，原則上並不存有所謂輕微干預不受合憲性控制的空間。立法者即使合於憲法所定要件而得以法律或授權以命令正當地限制人民之基本權，此等立法限制性質上均應爲國家權力介入基本權領域的最大範圍，絕非最低限制，立法者以外之行政權或法官均無擴大基本權干預範圍之權限。
此外，憲法第23條所稱之法律，應僅限於立法院所制定之法律，不應包含地方自治法規，即使是由地方自治團體中之民意代表機關所定之自治條從例，縱使有地方民意基礎，但於法規範體系中爲法律之下位階規範，不得牴觸法律否則無效，因此，無從晉身爲與法律同等地位，進而取代法律獨立地干預憲法所保障之基本權。
本文亦張，僅以現行地方制度法中有關自治條從例保留規定，是否可導出自治條例之於自治規則的法規範位階關係上的優位性，實非無疑問。地方立法機關並無如同國會般享有全方位立法權，若非屬地方自治權範圍之事項，而是由中央立法委辦事項，地方立法機關即不得以自治條例介入干預。地方行政機關明文引據中央法令所發布之公告，其內容涉及對人民基本權之限制者，若該等公告並獲中央令之授權，則即因此理由而無效，個案法官自得拒絕適用，但此等公告無法變性爲地方自治法規，從而以該公告違反自治條例保留規定爲由而無效。

關鍵字

營業自由 ； 職業自由 ； 基本權限制 ； 基本權干預之法律保留 ； 自治條例保留 ； 三階段理論

並列摘要

The freedom of business as a special form of the freedom of profession is protected by the right of work in Art. 15 of the Constitution. Its protected area includes free establishment and free exercise of a business. The restrictions on the freedom of business by the state powers should meet all the requirements in Art. 23 of the Constitution Among them a statute or regulation explicitly authorized by a statute is required for the public powers to restrain people of his basic rights. Under the construction of constitutional guarantee of the basic rights, there is no so-called trifle attack on people's basic rights that is free from the constitutional control. The restrictions upon a basic right imposed by a statute means the maximal range of the legitimate attack by the state actions. Neither the Executive nor the Judiciary is allowed to extend the range of the legal restrictions on the basic rights.
”Statute” mentioned in Art. 23 of the Constitution should be confined to law passed by the Legislative Yuan, autonomous regulations passed by communal assemblies not included. Such autonomous regulations are invalid if they stand contrary to the statutes. They don't have the same legal status as the statute in restricting the basic rights.
It is highly doubtful, if the generally superior status of autonomous regulations passed by communal assemblies to the autonomous rules passed by communal administrative authorities might be justified based on the legal provisions relating to the requirement of autonomous regulations passed by communal assemblies. Communal assemblies possess only the law-making competences to pass autonomous regulations within the self-governmental powers. Administrative matters conferred upon communal administrative authorities by organs of the state have nothing to do with communal assemblies. Under such circumstances, communal assemblies are principally not allowed to pass autonomous regulations to rule those delegated matters. An announcement issued by communal administrative authorities that attacks people's basic rights without statutory authorization is invalid, it's competent for the judge to refuse applying such an announcement to the legal matters concerned. However, such an announcement should not be redefined as an autonomous rule which refers to the field of the local government.

並列關鍵字

freedom of business ； freedom of profession ； restrictions of basic rights ； requirement of a statute in restricting on basic rights ； requirements of autonomous regulations passed by communal assemblies ； thre

參考文獻

李惠宗(1990)。論營業許可基準之司法審查－兼論我國營業自由之限制。經社法制論叢。5，227-264。

李惠宗(1997)。德國聯邦憲法法院裁判選輯（七）。台北:司法院。

李惠宗(2003)。憲法工作權保障系譜之再探－以司法院大法官解釋為中心。憲政時代。29(1)，121-158。

李惠宗(2005)。職業自由主觀要件限制之違憲審查。憲政時代。30(3)，255-294。

李震山(2005)。多元、寬容與人權保障－以憲法未列舉權之保障為中心。