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

Abstract

人民受到國家違法行為之干預而產生權利侵害與損害時，應使其在制度規範上得享有救濟之保障，以確保人民基本權主體地位之圓滿性。基此，傳統上乃將人民權利救濟體系區分為「第一次權利救濟」與「第二次權利救濟」，並分別以行政爭訟制度與國家賠償制度為代表。然而，此種精細的二元權利救濟體系雖在追求制度設計與概念劃分之細膩性，但也因採取了割裂式之體系界分，在特定案型中意外地導致人民權利之落空。其中，最受關注者，乃屬人民權利救濟次序是否受到限制之問題，亦即所謂的「第一次權利救濟優先原則」之爭議。申言之，人民遭受國家不法侵害而主張權利救濟時，就「第一次權利救濟」與「第二次權利救濟」兩救濟途徑之間，是否受有救濟次序上之限制？人民是否須先循第一次權利救濟，透過行政爭訟制度以排除國家不法侵害，其後始得循第二次權利救濟，依據國家賠償制度請求國家賠償損害？換言之，人民得否逕自針對權利損害，請求國家賠償，而不須針對造成權利損害之行政行為，先行提起行政爭訟？ 對此，本文先爬梳我國法、德國法上之「第一次權利救濟優先原則」的現況，視其在實務學說之討論上有何概念內涵、發展進程與制度侷限，並歸納出待決之問題。基於此一對我國法與德國法之反思，本文嘗試以數個角度分析該原則所應具有之模式與內涵，並在第一次權利救濟與第二次權利救濟間之救濟次序上，提出應以「與有過失原則」作為調控樞紐。而在公法上與有過失原則之評價模式下，本文復嘗試深化其概念內涵、規範依據、要件基準與法律效果，期能有助於該議題在國內之深化。

When country’s actions infringe on people’s right, the instituiton must ensure that people can make use of legal remedy to protect his own right. As a result, People’s legal remedies are divided into two parts: “premier legal remedy” and “secon¬dary legal remedy”. The dualism is to pursue a more exquisite institution. However the dualism of legal remedies sometimes hinders people from reaching the goal of legal remedies successfully. One of the most controversial issues is the “the principle of priority of premier legal remedy”. It is about whether people can utilize the secondary legal remedy directly without utilizing the premier legal remedy. In the other words, what is the correlation between administrative litigation system and state liability system. This thesis researches into Taiwan law firstly and will adopt comparative juris-prudential method and refer to new scholarly theories and court practices of Germany, in order to figure out the current situation of “the principle of priority of premier legal remedy” and conclude some issues that remain controversial. Based on these discussions, this thesis proposes the “model of contributory negligence” in order to clarify the correlations between administrative litigation system and state liability system.