法學論著
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 公務員考績免職誰來當家作主?-兼評 109 年度憲三字第 18 號釋憲案判決之可能走向(Who should take charge of cases regarding serious Civil Service Dismiss?-Predicting what and how the final judgement will be.)
編著譯者: 馮惠平
出版日期: 2022.05.17
資料來源: 台灣 作者提供
頁  數: 25 點閱次數: 1011
下載點數: 100 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 馮惠平
關 鍵 詞: 公務員懲戒懲戒法院懲戒處分免職違法失職
中文摘要: 近來,臺北高等行政法院(第五庭)法官在審理一位員警考列丁等免職案件的時候,認為行政機關首長握有這類剝奪公務員身分的生殺大權,是侵犯了憲法第 77 條所定「公務員懲戒」由司法院掌理的權限,因而聲請釋憲。針對這類年終考績予以丁等免職或專案考績一次記二大過免職(下稱考績免職)案件,究竟應該由行政部門或司法部門當家作主?本文嘗試在縱軸「時間度」上,往前回溯至 19 世紀時期,探究公務員懲戒制度的變與不變;在橫軸「空間度」上,參考我國公務員法制繼受國家德法日相關制度設計,從而瞭解我國公務員懲戒制度之特殊性。透過時間性與空間性的雙重探索,直接就本案大法官所提 3 項爭點進行分析,藉此預測判決可能之走向。
英文關鍵詞: Civil Service DisciplineDisciplinary CourtDisciplinary DispositionsDismissalIllegal Dereliction Of Duty
英文摘要: Recently an appealing for Constitutional Interpretation was issued by the fifth court room in Taipei High Administrative Court while dealing with a case about a policeman who was dismissed for being recorded as the 4th grade of evaluation. They suspect that such a punishment depriving of a civil servant’s eligibility and Status could infringe the jurisdiction of civil service punishment authorized by Article 77 of our Constitution. The main problem is which of the administrative, or the judicial departments should take charge of cases regarding serious fomentation of dissension or breach of discipline that may be removed from his or her office after two major demerits are recorded at a time (also integrated as Civil Service Dismiss Cases ) .
This article will first try to trace the evolution of our Civil Service Disciplinary system back to the period of the 19th century, which is investigated from the vertical axis of time. While on the horizontal axis of space, this article will find out the specialty of our Civil Service Disciplinary system and how it inherit and assimilate from similar systems of Germany or Japan. From these double exploring, three main disputes will be held and analyzed, as a effort to help us to predict what and how the final judgement will be.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、時間度
一、19 世紀時期
二、北京政府時期
三、國民政府時期
(一)懲戒制度
(二)考績制度
四、行憲時期
(一)懲戒制度
(二)考績制度
參、空間度
一、德國
二、法國
三、日本
四、我國
(一)懲戒制度
(二)考績制度
肆、事實度
  爭點一
  爭點二
  爭點三
伍、本案判決可能走向
陸、結語
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
    返回功能列