大法官解釋 釋字第723號 |
|---|
| 公佈日期：20140725 |
| 解釋爭點 |
| 以審查辦法規定全民健康保險醫療服務點數申報期限2年，違憲？ |
| 二、絕對法律保留原則適用之範圍應包括所有的時效制度 （一）依前所述，行政法、民法及刑法均有時效制度；而所有的時效制度目的，均在維持法律秩序之確定性、安定性及司法品質。故應認所有的時效制度，不論事件性質（行政法、民法、刑法事項），不論時效類型（消滅時效、取得時效、追訴權時效、行刑權時效），亦不論涉及權利之種類（人民財產權、自由權或其他權利），均應基於相同理由，適用絕對法律保留原則。 （二）本院釋字第四七四號解釋雖係針對保險金請求權之消滅時效而作成，然該解釋於論述時係泛稱一般之時效規定：「時效制度不僅與人民權利義務有重大關係，且其目的在於尊重既存之事實狀態，及維持法律秩序之安定，與公益有關」（見第四七四號解釋理由書第二段）。故依該號解釋之理由，法律保留原則應適用於所有的時效制度。然本號解釋則謂：「消滅時效制度之目的在於尊重既存之事實狀態，及維持法律秩序之安定，與公益有關」（見本號解釋理由書第一段）。多數意見顯有意將論述限縮於消滅時效制度；並隱含其他時效制度是否受絕對法律保留原則之拘束，不為其論述所涵蓋。惟依本席前揭說明，時效制度在法律保留之問題上，有其共通性，均為確保法律安定性及確定性之重要機制，且為法治國原則之重要內涵，而應一體受絕對法律保留原則之限制；多數意見此項限縮應無必要。 【註腳】 註一：European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - A New EU Framework to Strengthen the Rule of Law, at 2 and 4; 19 March 2014; COM(2014) 158 final／2 (http:／／ec.europa.eu／justice／effective-justice／files／com_2014_158_en58_en.pdff). 註二：Road Accident Fund and Another v. Mdeyide (CCT 10／10) [2010] ZACC 18; 2011 (1) BCLR 1 (CC); 2011 (2) SA 26 (CC) (30 September 2010); para. [8]: "This Court has repeatedly emphasised the vital role time limits play in bringing certainty and stability to social and legal affairs and maintaining the quality of adjudication. Without prescription periods, legal disputes would have the potential to be drawn out for indefinite periods of time bringing about prolonged uncertainty to the parties to the dispute. The quality of adjudication by courts is likely to suffer as time passes, because evidence may have become lost, witnesses may no longer be available to testify, or their recollection of events may have faded. The quality of adjudication is central to the rule of law. For the law to be respected, decisions of courts must be given as soon as possible after the events giving rise to disputes and must follow from sound reasoning, based on the best available evidence."該案判決內容，見http:／／www.saflii. org／za／cases／ZACC／2010／18.pdf. |
| < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > |
填單諮詢