摘 要 資訊時代下，要求國家對於人民提供資訊，係為行政程序要求公開透明化之國家重要任務。近年來，我國法制發展，主要著重在要求政府對不特定多數人公開資訊之相關法制建構。相較於此，課予行政機關於行政程序對特定人民提供資訊，無論是行政機關為單方面的資訊提供，或進一步以對話的方式提供意見的諮詢，為我國法制規範上未予關注之處。現代社會變遷下，行政任務內容朝向複雜及專業化發展，國家扮演的角色亦隨之重新定位，除了在消極方面，要求國家不得過度干預人民權利的行使外；在積極的面向上，國家負有提供人民生存照顧服務的義務。具體落實在一般行政程序當中，由於行政任務的變遷以及法規的繁雜，常使人民難於釐清之間的權益關係，除此之外，在社會行政程序中，程序相對人大多具有在資訊取得較為弱勢之特徵，為了有效落實並達成個別社會給付之目的，需透過行政機關在社會給付行政程序中，提供人民相關協助。 要求國家於行政程序中提供人民相關資訊，涉及正當行政程序在憲法上的定位。釋憲實務對於正當法律程序之發展，及對該概念所為的闡釋，說明程序在憲法上亦受到檢視。除了透過憲法明文規定之權利推導出程序的要求外，特別是在行政領域中，行政程序基本權的肯認，所能發揮人民權利保障的功能，係為近年來實務及學理上，就該權利主張之具體依據及內涵，於法制發展上關注的重心。而要求國家對個別人民提供資訊，足以作為行政程序基本權的具體內涵之一。 在法律的層次方面，基於公益的考量，課予行政機關於行政程序中踐履相關的義務，必須進一步探求系爭法規之規範意旨，透過保護規範理論的操作，探究人民是否具備主觀公權利。我國行政程序法中，並未就行政機關對人民之諮詢及提供資訊義務作一般性規定，然而，在個別社會相關專業法規當中，則存在許多課予行政機關負有諮詢及提供資訊之具體規範。對此，德國法上考量在一般行政程序中，相較於在社會行政程序中的不同需求，將行政機關之諮詢及提供資訊的內容作不同規範，甚至及於行政程序尚未開啟前之程序階段作討論。在我國未就社會給付行政程序另行規範一部專業法規的前提下，在社會給付行政程序中，說明行政機關對個別人民負擔諮詢及提供資訊義務之正當性，分別從行政程序法之一般性規定，及個別社會專業法規之規範作探討。 行政機關違反行政程序行為的法律效果，除了影響系爭行政決定作成的效力外，在國家責任制度方面，透過地位回復請求權之制度建構，俾使人民得請求回復到，如同行政機關已為正確資訊提供之程序地位，進而得為權利之行使及選擇。地位回復請求權對於人民權利保障所能發揮的功能，殊值作為未來我國相關法制度發展的思考面向。 關鍵詞：正當法律程序、正當行政程序、程序基本權、協助義務、良好行政、 諮詢、提供資訊、社會法地位回復請求權、社會行政程序、信賴保護。 / Abstract Under the information age, requiring the State to provide information to the people, is the important tasks for the procedural requirements of transparency. In recent years, the development of Taiwan’s legal system, mainly focused on asking the Government for disclosure of information to public. Compared to this, whether to ask administrative agency to provide information, further to provide advice on ways of dialogue to the specific people were not of the legal norms of the attention. Changes in modern society, the administration task definition faces complex and the specialized development. The role of the State is to reposition, except the negative side, requires that the State shall not interfere unduly with the exercise of the right of the people, on the positive side, the State have obligations to provide the life of care. Realization in general administrative procedure, due to the changes of the administrative tasks, as well as the complexity of regulations, often makes people difficult to clarify the relationship between rights and obligations. In the social administrative procedure, most people are more disadvantaged on the information obtained. In order to effectively implement and achieve social benefits purposes, asked the administrative agency to provide people to assist in the social welfare procedure. Require the State in administrative procedures to provide relevant information to the people, is related to administrative procedures in the positioning of the Constitution. Due process of law in the interpretation of the Judicial Yuan, to illustrate the procedure has also been reviewed in the Constitution. Except through the right of the Constitution provides to derive the requirements specification process, there is necessary to develop the procedural constitutional rights. Especially in administrative area, administrative practice and doctrinal in recent years, are committed to advocating the basis and content of the rights. Require the State to provide information to specific people, enough to serve as one of the content of the procedural constitutional rights. At the level of the legal aspects, based on public interest considerations, obligations of administrative agency in administrative procedures, must further explore whether people have the right of the legal norm. The Administrative Procedure Act of Taiwan, does not provide for the obligation of the administrative agency to consult and provide information to specific people. However, among the social regulations, provides that the administrative agency must provide consultation and information. In this regard, Germany considered the law of general administrative procedure, compared to the different needs in the field of social administrative procedure, provides consulting and providing information in different content, even before the stage has not yet been opened. In the case of social welfare are not standardized administrative procedures and regulations. The legitimacy of the administrative agency in social welfare procedures to provide advice and information to the people of the obligations, can be discussed separately from the general provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, and the requirements of social administrative regulations. If the administrative agency violated administrative procedures, in addition to affecting the validity of administrative decisions made. In the regime of State responsibility, through on the right to recover the procedure status, so that people will ask to return to, as administrative agency to provide correct information, for the exercise of the rights and choices, as the future development of Taiwan's legal system. Key Words：due process of law, due process of administration, the procedural constitutional rights, obligation to assist, Good Administration, consultation, information, the right to recover the procedure status, social administrative procedure, bona fide.

v anglickém jazyce - English abstract Protection of Right to Fair Trial in Relation to Preliminary Ruling Proceedings Right to fair trial is one of fundamental human rights, which enables individuals to effectively invoke their rights and freedoms before a lawful, impartial and independent court. In Europe, the protection of this right is guaranteed at a multi-layer level, whose layers interact: first layer is formed by constitutional orders of individual States, second layer by institutions of European Union, in particular the Court of Justice of the European Union, and a third one, that of the European Court for Human Rights. In the European Union, the Treaties have introduced the mechanism of preliminary ruling with the aim of preserving unity within the Union and of ensuring coherent interpretation and application of European law by the courts of the Member States. Preliminary ruling proceedings ensure effective cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Art. 267 TFEU provides for an obligation to request a preliminary ruling for national courts of last instance (if none of the CILFIT case law conditions is met). Breach of this obligation may entail violation of right to fair trial at all three layers of human rights protection in Europe. Each European...

C’est le droit des entreprises en difficulté qui a permis de mettre en évidence la complexité que pouvait revêtir la détermination de la date de naissance des créances. Or, celle-ci apparaît fondamentale en droit privé. Constituant le critère d’application de certains mécanismes juridiques, elle incarne l’existence de la créance et représente dès lors un enjeu pour toute règle de droit ayant celle-ci pour objet ou pour condition. Deux courants doctrinaux s’opposent, la thèse classique fixe la date de naissance au stade de la formation du contrat, tandis que des thèses modernes la fixent au stade de l’exécution du contrat. La thèse matérialiste, fondée sur le droit des entreprises en difficultés, fait naître la créance de prix au fur et à mesure de l’exécution de la contre-prestation. La thèse périodique, reposant sur une réflexion doctrinale quant aux contrats à exécution successive, fait renaître toutes les créances du contrat à chaque période contractuelle. L’examen des thèses moderne à l’aune des mécanismes juridique qui ne peuvent qu’incarner la véritable date de naissance de l’authentique créance aboutit à leur invalidité. La thèse classique se trouve donc à nouveau consacrée. Mais la résistance que lui oppose le droit des entreprises en difficulté ne peut reposer sur la technique d’une fiction juridique, car d’autres manifestations du même phénomène peuvent être mises en évidence en dehors de ce domaine. Un changement de paradigme s’impose donc pour résoudre le hiatus. Derrière ce phénomène persistant se cache en réalité une autre vision, une autre conception de la créance, la créance économique qui vient s’articuler avec la créance juridique dans le système de droit privé pour le compléter. La dualité des dates de naissance recèle donc en son sein une dualité du concept de créance lui-même, la créance juridique classique et la créance économique. La créance économique n’est pas un droit subjectif personnel. Elle n’est pas la créance juridique. Elle n’est pas autonome de la créance juridique et ne doit pas être confondue avec une créance née d’un cas d’enrichissement sans cause. La créance économique représente la valeur produite par le contrat au fur et à mesure de l’exécution de sa prestation caractéristique. Elle permet de corriger l’application ordinaire du concept de créance juridique par en assurant la fonction de corrélation des produits et des charges d’un bien ou d’une activité. Ses domaines d’application sont divers. Outre son utilisation dans les droits comptable et fiscal, la créance économique permet la détermination de la quotité cédée dans le cadre d’une cession de contrat, la détermination du gage constitué par un patrimoine d’affectation dans le cadre de la communauté légale, de l’EIRL ou encore de la fiducie, ainsi que la détermination du passif exempté de la discipline d’une procédure collective. Dans ces domaines, ce n’est donc pas la date de naissance de la créance juridique qui s’applique, mais la date de naissance de la créance économique. La cohérence du système de droit privé se trouve donc ainsi restaurée quant à la date de naissance de la créance. / It is the laws governing companies experiencing difficulties which have revealed the complexity of determining the dates of the origination of the claims. And yet this appears to be fundamental in private law. As it constitutes the criterion for implementing certain legal mechanisms, it epitomizes the existence of the claim and hence represents a challenge for any rule of law in which the existence of this claim is a goal or condition. There are two conflicting doctrinal currents: the traditional approach sets the date of origination at the stage of the formation of the contract, while modern approaches situate it at the stage of the execution of the contract. The materialistic approach, based on the law governing companies experiencing difficulties, staggers the origination of the price debt over the period of the execution of the service. The periodical approach, which relies on a doctrinal reflection on successive execution contracts, is that of the re-origination of all the claims under the contract at each contractual period. An examination of the modern approaches, under the auspices of the legal mechanisms which can only epitomize the true date of origination of the authentic claim leads to the invalidity thereof. The traditional approach is therefore once again consecrated. But the resistance constituted by the laws governing companies in difficulty cannot rely on the technique of legal fiction, because other manifestations of the same phenomenon can be identified outside this domain. Therefore, a change of paradigm is in order if the hiatus is to be resolved. Behind this persistent phenomenon lies in fact another vision, another concept of the claim: the economic claim which, interwoven with the legal claim in the private law system, supplements it. The duality of the dates of origination therefore conceals in its bosom the duality of the very concept of a claim, the traditional legal claim and the economic claim. The economic claim is not a subjective personal right. It is not a legal claim. It is not autonomous of the legal claim and must not be confused with a claim originating in a case of unwarranted enrichment. The economic claim represents the value produced by the contract as the service which characterizes it is provided. It permits the rectification of the ordinary application of the concept of legal claim by ensuring the function of correlating the proceeds with the costs of a commodity or an activity. Its domains of application are varied. In addition to its use in accounting and fiscal law, the economic claim permits the determination of the portion transferred in the context of the transfer of a contract, the determination of the collateral consisting in a special-purpose fund in the context of a legal joint estate, a limited liability individual contractor or a trust, as well as the determination of the liabilities which escape the discipline of collective proceedings. In these domains, it is therefore not the date of origination of the legal claim which applies, but the date of origination of the economic claim. The coherence of the private law system is therefore restored as concerns the date of the origination of the claim.