民事訴訟上之判例違憲審查與訴訟權保障

Constitutional Violation Review of Test Cases and Litigation Rights Guarantees in Civil Litigation

許士宦(Shu-Huan Shyuu)

《臺大法學論叢》 34卷6期 (2005/11) Pp. 57-106

https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ.2005.34.06.02

摘要

判例雖其一定抽象的規範拘束力，但依法官獨立原則，受訴法院仍得且應於具體個案行獨立審判，自行判定判例所持法律見解於各該案件適用上之妥適性，且爲貫徹憲法之最高規範性及法治國家原則，應同時就判例爲違憲容查。在判例之適用及變更上，爲保陣當事人之程序基本權，法官於採用或改變判例所持法律見解時，固應賦予當事人辯論之機會，以避免發生突襲性裁判；於認應適用之判例有牴觸憲法之情形，亦應敘明理山而拒絕其適用，俾最高法院利用無訴機會適時予以廢止。並且，以原判決所適用之判例侵害程序基本權作爲上訴第三審理由時，如其非屬民訴法所列舉之當然違背法令事由，仍應類推該等規定，使其成爲權利上訴之理由；至於確定裁判所適用之判例違憲而影響裁判結果者，亦應許當事人逕依再審程序請求救濟，而不必先循大法官解釋。如此，始足以保障當事人之聽審請求權、公正程序請求權或適時審判請求權。

關鍵字

判例 ； 先例拘束原則 ； 判例違憲審查 ； 平等原則 ； 法官獨立原則 ； 權力分立理論 ； 法官造法 ； 程序基本權 ； 權利上訴 ； 適時審判請求權

並列摘要

The test case system is unique to the judicial system of Taiwan, R. O. C. that differs from the British, United States, German and Japanese systems in that each judgment serves as a case for judgment precedent As a result, the national constitutional system frequently inspires disputes over the permissibility of grand justice test cases as constitutional violation review Furthermore, in the case of civil litigation, people also frequently claim, with the violation of their constitutionally protected litigation rights as the reason, that the test cases grand justices apply to interpret decision outcome verdicts violate the constitution Accordingly, this paper aims to investigate how to define and position test cases in the nation's legal procedures what type of judiciary-made law functionality it possesses and whether or not it should be subject to constitutional review Additionally, this paper investigates how the fundamental procedural rights of the interested parties are to be guaranteed with the courts application and modification of test cases in implementing litigation right guarantees in specific civil litigation.

並列關鍵字

Doctrine of the binding precedent ； Review of constitutional violation ； Judge-made law ； Fundamental procedural rights ； Right to request a timely trial

參考文獻

許士宦(2003)。程序保障與闡明義務。

E．博登海默、鄧正來(1999)。法理學。

Karl Larenz、王曉曄(2002)。德國民法通論（上冊）。

Karl Larenz、陳愛娥(1996)。法學方法論。

Robert Alexy、程明修(1999)。作為主觀權利與客觀規範之基本權。憲法時代。24(4)，83。