[[alternative]]A Study on Legal Remedy of Fair Trade Cases

[[abstract]]本研究之主旨在於(一)探討在現行公平交易法制下，公平交易事件爭訟制度及實務之問 題點;仁)以公平交易委員會(以下簡稱公平會)組織及作用(職權行使)上之觀點，檢討 現行爭訟體制及實務有無違背「獨立性」特質?(三)基於公平會組織及作用上獨立性之特質， 於處理違反公平交易事件時，應依何法律程序為之?為達規制目的，得採取何種行政手法? (鷗探討公平會作成處分或為其他行政手法後，其後續爭訟程序為何?但)建議如何解決現行 公平交易事件爭訟制度之問題點。 「政治中立性」→「獨立性」→「準司法機能」→「嚴謹的準司法程序」→「日本制 為兔除訴願程序，美國制為行政審判自由選擇原則，兩國對行政決定之行政審判，均非必 要程序」→「免除一審訴訟程序」及「採用實質證據法則主義、新證據提出之限制J '係 美國及日本對公平交易事件主管機關之組織及權限、處理程序及其爭訟程序之準司法化之 整體制度。公平交易事件爭訟制度，論理上，必須與公平交易主管機關之組織、職權、機 能及處理程序相互配合，作整體設計，不得僅就爭訟制度與其他制度完全分割而獨自設計。 我國公平會，在組織上，僅真相對獨立性、政治中立性;委員任命方式由行政院長提 請總統任命，相較於美、日等園，委員任命仍欠缺民主監督。在職權上，享有與一般行政 機關一樣之行政權及準立法權，而欠缺準司法權。在目前公平會處理公平交易事件之程序 仍屬行政程序，與行政程序法及訴願法上之行政處分無異。 公平會基於競爭政策對個案所為之處分，係基於高度專業性之判斷所為，在某種程度 上應予以尊重，不宜由其他行政機關及司法機關予以否定，否則有忽視公平會專業性判斷 之虞。不過，公平會之專業性， 固然宜予以尊重，但尚難僅以其專業性為理由而免除訴願 程序。現行體制之問題在於公平會之組織及職權行使之獨立性，只不過為抽象的及相對的 獨立性而己，公平會處理程序仍係行政程序，並非以其組織及職權行使之獨立性為基礎之 準司法程序，既欠缺程序之準司法化，貝IJ基於行政程序所為之不利處分，自無法視為準司 法決定。 現行法制下，對公平會之不利處分，倘擬免除訴願程序，公平會對每件處分案均積極 舉行聽證者，自得依行政程序法第109 條規定免除訴願程序，而兔於訴願管轄機關之合目 的性監督，以確保其組織及職權行使上之獨立性。但在立法論上，由於行政程序法畢竟僅 為最低限度之程序保障之一般規範而已，公平會處理公平交易事件程序保障程度之要求，應高於最低限度的程序保障; 將來於修正法規時， 應建立保障程度高於行政程序法之公 易程序法制，貝IJ訴願程序自得一併免除。 若肯定美國及日本公平交易主管機關行政委員化之理念，貝IJ本研究建議可分短期及長 期目標，漸進至全面修正公平交易法及其相關法規: (一)短期目標: 強化處理程序之準司法化，例如擴大聽證範圍， 聽證程序之準司法化，聽 證主持人之公正客觀化，委員會審議採直接審理原則，委員全程參與證據調查，聽證 紀錄對委員會之決議有拘束力，當事人間攻擊防禦方法之對等性等。 行政訴訟第一審為事實審，關於專業判斷之事實，宜尊重公平會之判斷，而為保障公 平會之專業之事實認定，可採用實質證據法則主義及限制新證據提出等特殊訴訟程序 制度。 仁)長期目標: 著重於賦與公平會準司法機能，包括組織內部審判部門與訴追部門之分離， 委員會對訴追部門無指揮監督權，委員之任命排除政治任命，而偏重專業任命，並受 民主監督，同時委員身分保障，亦應予強化。The keynotes of our research are: 1. Discussing the problems between the legal remedy and the practice of fair trade cases in the Fair Trade Law. 2. From the viewpoints of the organizational structure and the carrying out duties, we will discuss whether the legal remedies or the practices disobey the characteristics of independence. 3. Based on the characteristics of the independent on the legal remedy and practice, what is the proceeding we should follow? 4. What is the proceeding after the Fair Trade Committee (FTC) made the administrative discipline? 5. The suggestions about solving these problems. The systems of quasi-judicature in The United States and Japan have some characteristics in the organization, purview, and proceeding of the remedy. There are: 1. the neutrality in the politics 2. independent power 3. quasi-judicial power 4. the proceeding of quasi-judicial strictly 5. The administrative Appeal is not necessary: in Japan, they exempt the procedure of appeals; in U.S.A., people can make a choice by themselves. 6. exempt the first instance proceeding 7. take the essential evidence and limit to raise new proof In theory, the system on a legal remedy must go with the organization, purview, function and proceeding. It's hard to separate the legal remedy from other systems and legislate by themselves. The organization of FTC is only independent partly. The Premier of Administrative Department gives a mention and the President appoints them as the committeemen of FTC. The purviews of FTC have the administrative power and quasi- legislative power, but without quasijudicial power. The proceeding of administration in Administrative· Procedural Laws is no different from the discipline of Laws of Administrative Petition. The committeemen of FTC make the discipline with profession. Other administrative and judicial departments shouldn't reject the discipline and they should respect the profession of FTC. But it is hard to exempt the procedure of appeal by this reason. The point is the independent of FTC is abstract and partly, but lacking of quasi-judicial power. Without this, the discipline of FTC can't be the quasi-judicial decision. If the FTC can hold the hearings about the discipline, the FTC can exempt the procedure of appeal basing on 109 article of the Administrative Procedural Law. After all the Administrative Procedural Law is the minimum protection in the administrative procedure. When the FTC will revise the law, they should legislate the more safeguard laws than the laws of procedure of FTC. If we can do that, the procedure of appeal can be exempted. Both short-term and long-term targets, and modify the whole Fair Trade Law and other related laws. 1. Short-term targets: Strict the quasi-judicial of the procedure of FTC. For example, expanding the range of hearing; the procedure of hearing must be quasi-judicature; the chairman of the hearing should be objectivity, etc. To ensure the conclusion of the facts with profession by FTC, the court can take the essential evidence and limit to raise new proof. 2. Long-term targets: To give the quasi-judicial power to FTC, including dividing the proceeding and judgment departments; the FTC can't supervise the proceeding departments; the point is profession when the President appoints the committeemen; the identities of the committeemen should be ensured.[[abstract]]The keynotes of our research are: (1) Discussing the problems betweenthe legal remedy and the practice of fair trade cases in the FairTrade Law. (2) From the viewpoints of the organizational structure andthe carrying out duties, we will discuss whether the legal remedies orthe practices disobey the characteristics of independence. (3) Basedon the characteristics of the independent on the legal remedy andpractice, what is the proceeding we should follow? (4) What is theproceeding after the Fair Trade Committee (FTC) made theadministrative discipline? (5) The suggestions about solving theseproblems. The systems of quasi-judicature in The United States andJapan have some characteristics in the organization, purview, andproceeding of the remedy. There are: (1) the neutrality in thepolitics; (2) independent power; (3) quasi-judicial power; (4) theproceeding of quasi-judicial strictly; (5) The administrative Appealis not necessary: in Japan, they exempt the procedure of appeals; inU.S.A., people can make a choice by themselves; (6) exempt the firstinstance proceeding; (7) take the essential evidence and limit toraise new proof. In theory, the system on a legal remedy must go withthe organization, purview, function and proceeding. It's hard toseparate the legal remedy from other systems and legislate bythemselves. The organization of FTC is only independent partly . Thepremier of Administrative Department gives a mention and the Presidentappoints them as the committeemen of FTC. The purviews of FTC have theadministrative power and quasi- legislative power, but withoutquasi-judicial power. The proceeding of administration inAdministrative Procedural Laws is no different from the discipline ofLaws of Administrative Petition. The committeemen of FTC make thediscipline with profession. Other administrative and judicialdepartments shouldn't reject the discipline and they should respectthe profession of FTC. But it is hard to exempt the procedure ofappeal by this reason. The point is the independent of FTC is abstractand partly, but lacking of quasi-judicial power. Without this, thediscipline of FTC can't be the quasi-judicial decision. If the FTC canhold the hearings about the discipline, the FTC can exempt theprocedure of appeal basing on 109 article of the AdministrativeProcedural Law. After all the Administrative Procedural Law is theminimum protection in the administrative procedure. When the FTC willrevise the law, they should legislate the more safeguard laws than thelaws of procedure of FTC. If we can do that, the procedure of appealcan be exempted. Both short-term and long-term targets, and modify thewhole Fair Trade Law and other related laws. (1) Short-term targets:Strict the quasi-judicial of the procedure of FTC. For example,expanding the range of hearing; the procedure of hearing must bequasi-judicature; the chairman of the hearing should be objectivity,etc. To ensure the conclusion of the facts with profession by FTC, thecourt can take the essential evidence and limit to raise new proof.(2) Long-term targets: To give the quasi-judicial power to FTC,including dividing the proceeding and judgment departments; the FTCcan't supervise the proceeding departments; the point is professionwhen the President appoints the committeemen; the identities of thecommitteemen should be ensured.[[sponsorship]]行政院公平交易委員會[[conferencetype]]國內[[conferencedate]]20011029~20011030[[iscallforpapers]]Y[[conferencelocation]]臺北市, 臺