您的瀏覽器不支援JavaScript語法,但是並不影響您獲取本網站的內容
司法院內部與外部景觀圖片動畫
::: | | 大法官 | 案件審理 | 大法官解釋 | 相關法規 | |
 
多條件查詢頁面按鈕

 

:::
 

大法官解釋表頭

(釋字第 695 號 )      友善列印PRINT  
Interpretation
J.Y.
Interpretation
NO.695 
Date 2011/12/30
Issue Given the dual system of litigation adopted by the Constitution, it is asked if disputes over the denial of a lease granted according to the Operational Guidelines for the Restoration of over-cultivated, state-owned Woodland, are to be resolved by administrative litigation or not.
Holding
1
  Cases involving district offices of the Council of Agriculture of the Executive Yuan’s Forestry Bureau which, in accordance with the Operational Guidelines for the Restoration of over-cultivated, state-owned Woodland, have denied applications for leases are to be considered as disputes arising from relations governed by public law, and therefore the injured party may seek remedy through administrative litigation duly adjudicated by the administrative courts.
Reasoning
1
  Under the existing law, trials of civil and administrative cases are conducted in separate courts: that is, the administrative courts and the courts of general jurisdiction. Unless otherwise stipulated by law, disputes arising from relations governed by private law shall be determined by courts of general jurisdiction; disputes arising from relations governed by public law shall be adjudicated by administrative courts (see J. Y. Interpretation No. 448 and No. 466). In cases involving civilians applying for contracts with the Authorities based on administrative regulations, the said Authorities may grant rejection on grounds of public interests, and the injured party may resort to administrative litigation for relief (see J. Y. Interpretation No. 540).

2
  To continue on the work of restoration mandated in Agriculture Order No. 35876 issued by the Secretary of the former Taiwan Province on 27 May 1969 (also known as the “Taiwan Provincial Plan for the Restoration of Over-cultivated State-owned Woodland”), the Council of Agriculture under the Executive Yuan enacted the Operational Guidelines for the Restoration of Over-cultivated, State-owned Woodland (hereafter “the Guidelines at issue”) along with an Enforcement Plan on 23 April 2008 in an attempt to handle persons who engage in illegal cultivation or reclamation, and further launched forestry restoration to improve forestland security and boost public welfare. To this end, District Offices of the Council of Agriculture under the Executive Yuan’s Forestry Bureau (hereafter “Forestry District Offices”) may only contract with civilian applicants after the said applicants have actually applied for a lease in accordance with the Guidelines at issue as well as other related ordinances.

3
  The main purpose of such restoration task lies in resolving problems arisen from over-cultivation on state-owned woodland as well as preserving long-term public interests such as homeland security (see Article 5 of the Forest Law). Hence, the Forestry District office has the authority to reject any leasing contract proposed by civilian applicant on grounds of threats to maintain sustainable forestry management or to matters of major public interest such as homeland security during its investigation process or having confirmed the compliance of the said civilian occupier. As a result, the threshold lies in whether the decision made by the Forestry District Office is based on the exercise of public authority. In other words, if public policy plays a part in the determination by the Forestry District Office when weighing up whether or not to lease state-owned woodland to civilian applicants, the subsequent decision certainly pertains to public law. As a consequence, an injured party must resort to administrative litigation for relief, and all related disputes of this kind shall be adjudicated by administrative courts.

Translated by Marie C.Y. Li

Editor's Note Summary of facts: The Petitioner (for this Interpretation) serves as a civil court judge at Taiwan Yilan District Court (hereafter “Yilan Court”). The reason for this petition arose from the fact that the Yilan Court was the original trial court for the leasing dispute. The plaintiffs, including Yang Bi-Guang, applied to Luodong Forest District Office for a lease based on the Operational Guidelines for the Restoration of Over-cultivated, State-owned Woodland (hereafter “the Guidelines at issue”). Their application was rejected on grounds of poor qualifications as well as failure to attain objective compliance. The plaintiffs filed for petition and administrative litigation, but were then vacated (Judgment of 98 Su Zi No. 1590 (2009)) and remanded back to the Yilan Court by the Taipei High Administrative Court based on lacking of justified jurisdiction. After the case was dismissed by the Luodong Summary Division of the Yilan Court, the plaintiffs appealed. Chief Justice Yang Li-Qiu of the Civil Division of the Yilan Court, and Justices Lin Jun-Ting and Zhang Xuan-Hao all held the same position that the case at issue was of public law nature and thus the Civil Division of the Yilan Court lacked jurisdiction over such case. Owing to the discrepancy of judicial opinions between the Civil Division of the Yilan Court and the Taipei High Administrative Court and pursuant to Article 182-1 Section 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the case at issue was ruled to cease and petition for interpretation by the Judicial Yuan was properly requested (Civil Judgment of 99 Jian Shang Zi No. 48 (2010)).
Opinion
(Files)
Chinese only
 

BACK

 
 
::: Home 中文(Chinese) Site Map
 
使用聲明 Copyright©2004 JUSTICES OF THE CONSTITUTIONSL COURT. JUDICIAL YUAN 本網站建議使用解析度為1024*768全彩及Explorer5.5以上瀏覽器     通過A+等級無障礙網頁檢測
多條件查詢頁面連結點 解釋爭點總覽頁面連結點