2010.4.1 高雄律師-楊岡儒律師
--
◎原標題:法學英文選讀(7)訴訟權導讀1:訴訟權(The Right of Instituting Legal Proceedings;The Right of Legal Actions)與正當法律程序(Due Process of Law)
(註*奇摩的標題限制100字。)
--
上次選讀了『正當法律程序原則(Due Process of Law)』,此次將以『訴訟權』之角度為切入,其內涵含括:『法院救濟之核心內容』。而關於訴訟救濟制度,廣泛面向之司法制度觀察上,則包含『法院之管轄事件』(例如:普通法院(含學理上所稱之民事、刑事法院;實務上之民事庭及刑事庭)、行政法院,乃至專業法院之智慧財產法院),以及『個別法院之之審級、訴訟程序及相關救濟程序』等層面。
關於『訴訟權與正當法律程序』,主要仍係闡述『訴訟救濟之憲法上基本權保障』,亦即憲法第16條所稱:『人民有請願、訴願及訴訟之權。』其中涉及『訴訟權』之內涵,顯然並非僅止形式上之向法院請求或起訴,而應包含對人民實際權益內涵之保障面向。
目前民事訴訟之財產權訴訟,其上訴第三審設有相關限制,例如其上訴第三審之上訴利益,財產之訴訟標的金額應逾越150萬元(民訴第466條第一項僅規定逾100萬,審酌其同條第三項規定,司法院得因情勢需要,以命令增至一百五十萬元,故實務上司法院目前係以命令規定增加為須逾150萬元)。
至於該訴訟法之限制是否合理?是否合符正當法律程序之實質內涵?都是我們應該回歸訴訟權保障,以及應深思之層面。
祝福大家安好與順心如意
兔寶寶律師謹筆
2010.4.1
附註:司法院(91)院台廳民一字第03075號
要旨:民事訴訟法第466條第一項所定上訴第三審之利益額數,提高為新台幣150萬元。
主旨:本院已將民事訴訟法第四百六十六條第一項所定上訴第三審之利益額數,提高為新台幣一百五十萬元,並訂於 中華民國九十一年二月八日 起實施,請 查照。
-------------
大法官會議解釋:釋字第574號 (節錄)
解釋文:
憲法第十六條所規定之訴訟權,係以人民於其權利遭受侵害時,得依正當法律程序請求法院救濟為其核心內容。而訴訟救濟應循之審級、程序及相關要件,則由立法機關衡量訴訟案件之種類、性質、訴訟政策目的,以及訴訟制度之功能等因素,以法律為正當合理之規定。民事訴訟法第四百六十六條對於有關財產權訴訟上訴第三審之規定,以第二審判決後,當事人因上訴所得受之利益是否逾一定之數額,而決定得否上訴第三審之標準,即係立法者衡酌第三審救濟制度之功能及訴訟事件之屬性,避免虛耗國家有限之司法資源,促使私法關係早日確定,以維持社會秩序所為之正當合理之限制,與憲法第十六條、第二十三條尚無違背。
J. Y. Interpretation No.574 (excerpts from the No.574)
Holding(excerpts):The right to institute legal actions referred to in Article 16 of the Constitution is available when the people ’ s rights are infringed and fair legal proceedings may be resorted to in seeking certain remedy from the courts. The trial instances, procedures and relevant requisites to be followed by the legal actions shall be justified by the legislative authority under laws by taking into consideration the type, nature and purpose of the legal actions, as well as the function of litigious systems. According to the provisions of Article 466 of the Code of Civil Procedure with respect to appeal against the court’s judgment of the second trial instance in a case concerning property rights, whether an appeal is claimable against the judgment of the second trial instance should depend on whether the concerned party’s benefit arising from the appeal will exceed a specific amount or not. In other words, because legislators want to avoid wasting the limited national judicial resources, they have to examine the function of the remedial system at the third trial instance and the attributes of the matters, in order to establish the relationship of private law and to maintain fair and reasonable restrictions under the social order; therefore, no violation of Articles 16 and 23 of the Constitution is constituted.
◎帝謙法律事務所官方網站 :http://www.dclaw.tw |