论文部分内容阅读
中国台湾地区每年有数万件诉愿案件,但却少见以诉愿决定为主题的实证研究。本文除以台湾地区“行政院”所公布的台湾地区“内政部诉愿会”相关统计数据为研究客体外,抽样台湾地区“内政部”2006年至2009年近900件诉愿案件,以逻辑回归模型、费雪精确检验、叙述统计,分析抽样案件。本文提出“诉愿程序更正比例”为新的指标,用以辅助评估台湾地区“内政部诉愿会”的运作成效。该指标计算诉愿程序所发现的行政处分错误,占诉愿暨诉讼程序所发现的行政处分错误之比率;台湾地区“内政部诉愿会”的诉愿程序更正比例为91%。此外,本文发现台湾地区“内政部诉愿会”倾向尊重原处分机关对“非法律专业”案件的事实认定;并且,诉愿决定书较少记叙“合目的性审查”的内容。再者,当事人较少陈述意见,台湾地区“内政部诉愿会”更少举行言词辩论。最后,台湾地区“内政部”诉愿审议时间一般短于台湾地区“高等行政法院”审议时间,但有23.8%的诉愿人未接受诉愿结果而向台湾地区“行政法院”提诉。
There are tens of thousands of petition cases in Taiwan each year, but there are few empirical studies on the subject of appeal. This article is divided by Taiwan “Administrative Yuan ” published by the Taiwan “Ministry of Interior Appeal ” related statistics as the research object, the sampling Taiwan “Interior ” nearly 900 petitions from 2006 to 2009 Cases, with a logistic regression model, Fisher’s exact test, narrative statistics, analysis of sampling cases. This paper proposes that “the proportion of correction of petition procedures” be a new indicator to assist in assessing the operational effectiveness of the “Ministry of Interior Claims ”. The indicator calculates the administrative sanction error found in the appeals process, accounting for the ratio of administrative appeals found in the appeals and litigation procedures. In Taiwan, the appeals process of the “Ministry of Interior Appeal” was corrected at 91%. In addition, this article finds that Taiwan’s “Department of Interior Appeal” prefers to respect the fact that the original punishment authority has “non-legal major” cases in Taiwan; and that the petitions for indictment contain fewer narratives and contents of “purposeful examination” . Furthermore, the parties have made fewer representations, and the Taiwan region’s “Ministry of the Interior” petition held fewer speeches. Finally, the review time for petitions in Taiwan’s “interior ministry” was generally shorter than the review time for Taiwan’s “Higher Administrative Courts” in Taiwan. However, 23.8% of the petitioners did not accept the result of the petition and asked Taiwan’s “Administrative Court” V.