• Refine Query
  • Source
  • Publication year
  • to
  • Language
  • 3
  • 3
  • Tagged with
  • 3
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • About
  • The Global ETD Search service is a free service for researchers to find electronic theses and dissertations. This service is provided by the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations.
    Our metadata is collected from universities around the world. If you manage a university/consortium/country archive and want to be added, details can be found on the NDLTD website.
1

論人身自由及遷徙自由之保障----以公法上金錢給付義務之強制執行為中心

蔡基文 Unknown Date (has links)
人民基本權利之保障,無不受到世界各先進國家之重視與積極追求,並以之作為普世價值,及衡量一個國家民主發展的程度。人身自由權與遷徙自由權,為我國憲法所明定之人民基本權利,應予以最大保障,惟仍非不得於合乎憲法第 23 條要件之情形下,對其為必要之限制。 國家債權之實現與法治國原則之維護,均為國家重大之公益目的。公法上金錢給付義務之履行,攸關國家財政歲收之健全及發展建設之推行,其與全體國民之福祉息息相關。前揭義務之強制執行,即在確保國家債權得以實現,俾能順利完成國家建設或其他行政給付;在法治國家,人民負有守法的義務,對違反守法義務之人民,透過強制執行之程序,達到與其履行前揭義務之相同法律效果,以維護法治國公平正義之原則並建立行政法秩序。   行政執行法中有關拘提、管收、暫予留置及限制出境等規定,乃係國家執行機關為追求實現前揭兩大公益目的,所採取限制人民人身自由與遷徙自由之執行措施。在確保人民基本權利之前提下,應如何認定其符合憲法第 23 條之形式要件並通過違憲審查之檢驗,以確實取得該等執行措施之合法性與正當性,為本論文之研究主軸。 論文伊始,先介紹公法上金錢給付義務強制執行之實務概況,嗣分別論述:(一)、人身自由與遷徙自由之保障,及對其為限制時之違憲審查。(二)、採取拘提、管收、暫予留置、限制出境等執行措施之相關問題。(三)、人身自由權與遷徙自由權作為基本權利所發揮之功能。最後,基於建構「立法者改善義務」之憲法上理論依據,提出修法建議。 / All developed countries in the world pay attention to and pursue to the protection of human rights. It becomes a general value worldwide and it is an index measuring the democracy of a country. The personal freedom and movement freedom are the fundamental human rights stated in the Constitution of our country and they should be protected strictly. However, they still should not violate the restriction stated in Clause 23 in Constitution. The realization of creditor's right of the country and the protection of the law and order of the country are the major items for public benefits. The obligation of payment in Public Law is closely related to the integrity of the national revenue and implementation of the development. It is closely linked to the welfare of all citizens. The coactive execution of the above-stated obligation is to ensure the realization of the right of creditor of the country so that the national development and other administrative payments can be completed smoothly. In the country governed by law, it is the obligation of the citizens to obey the law. If the citizens violate the law, the coactive execution will be conducted in order to achieve the equivalent juridical of the above-stated obligation, and maintain the fair and just principle of the country governed by law and establish the order of administrative law. Regarding the arrest, detention, temporary detention and departure restriction in administrative executive, it is the execution authority of the country to restrict the personal freedom and movement freedom in order to realize the two major benefits stated above. The main purpose of this thesis is to discuss how the important conditions of violation of Clause 23 of Constitution can be reviewed to obtain the legitimacy and justifiability of those executions under the protection of fundamental human rights. At the beginning of the thesis, the overview of coactive execution of obligation about payment in Public Law is introduced. It includes: (1) the protection of personal freedom and movement freedom, and the corresponding restriction in accordance with the review of violation of Constitution; (2) the relevant issues for the execution of arrest, detention, temporary detention and departure restriction; (3) the effect of personal freedom and movement freedom on the fundamental rights. Finally, according to the "obligation of legislator on improvement" on Constitution, the amendment will be proposed.
2

偵查中之羈押審查 / Court review of detention under investigation

朱曉群, Chu Hsiao Chun Unknown Date (has links)
1995年12月22日司法院釋字第392號解釋意旨,本於憲法第8條正當法律程序精神,採取2年定期失效解釋方式,將偵查中羈押權回歸法院審查,嗣於1997年12月19日刑事訴訟法修正實施後,偵查中羈押決定權正式歸由法院審查,乃絕對法官保留原則。誠然,羈押為干預人身自由最為劇烈之強制處分,自1997年12月羈押權悉歸由法院行使已逾13年,期間不乏因檢察官羈押聲請案件衍生實務爭議問題,甚而引發社會輿論沸沸揚揚之討論,究其因乃刑事訴訟法第十章關於被告羈押之規定固計有21條;然法官對於偵查中之羈押審查,所應踐行之審查程序,例如:偵查中羈押聲請是否涉及管轄權、羈押庭的法院組織係採合議制或獨任制、檢察官應否到庭、辯護人在場權之行使(得否以偵查不公開為由暫時拒卻辯護人於羈押庭在場),及羈押審查之範圍與界限為何,均乏明文,而此亦為實務個案中所呈現爭議。 偵查中羈押實有其秘匿性與急迫性,法官如何於檢察官呈現之證據資料,於極短暫時間,判斷被告或犯罪嫌疑人是否該當條文所示之羈押事由及其必要性等各環節,如何於法制規範未完備之際,妥適審斷。本文擬先藉由羈押制度之基本概念說明,再依循法院於受理偵查中羈押案件,自程序審查之開端俟至羈押理由要件審查,實務上曾產生個案爭議之介紹,及對於不服偵查中羈押裁決之救濟模式,兼論修正草案內容,試以突顯現行條文規範偵查中羈押審查之缺漏,作為日後羈押制度修法的借鏡,以期符合國際間對於被告人權保障的落實。
3

行政執行障礙法律問題之研究(公法上金錢給付義務部分)

王惠慧 Unknown Date (has links)
本論文將法務部行政執行署所屬行政執行處依據行政執行法為行政執行中,因相關之法律問題,致造成公法上金錢給付義務事件不能很迅速地結案,即有障礙者,統稱之為「行政執行障礙法律問題」。 本論文除第一章為緒論及第八章為結論外,自第二章起至第七章,分章就行政執行名義、行政執行標的、行政執行程序救濟管道、合併執行、輔助性之人身執行-拘提管收部分及執行憑證等法律問題見解爭議之態樣,探討各法律問題態樣於行政執行實務上不同之見解爭議,並論述目前實務作法或提出建議方案。 另為方便參閱本論文涉及之重要條文、司法院解釋、最高法院及最高行政法院相關決議,亦於本論文末摘錄部分內容,以供參考。

Page generated in 0.0659 seconds