- <![CDATA[檢察官定位與指令拘束──德國法的視角啟發]]>科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;">Discussion on the Position of Prosecutors and the Restriction on Orders Regarding Prosecutorial Matters–From the Perspective of German Law</span></span><br />
作者：</strong>許澤天<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201809<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>法律守護人；法定原則；法價值；檢察官；檢察指令權；司法官；行政官；客觀義務；Guardian of Law；Principle of Legality；Legal Value；Prosecutor；Right to Command；the Judicial Officer；the Administrative Officer；Objective Obligation<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
檢察官扮演介於法官與警察之間的法律守護人，不但必須履行客觀義務與遵守法定原則，更須將法價值的實現作為其存在的根本意義，而與一個把法律當作工作制約的行政官有所區別。檢察官在憲法的權力分立意義上屬於行政權，而不在憲法第七章有關「司法」的規範範圍內。因此，憲法第 80 條對於從事審判工作的法官，要求須依據法律獨立審判，卻未明文對檢察官做此要求；立法機關更在法院組織法第 63 條與第 64 條分別規定，檢察總長與檢察長對檢察官的指揮監督權以及職務承繼權與移轉權。不過，在刑事程序的任務上，檢察官與刑事法官皆屬廣義的刑事司法機關，透過彼此的分工與制衡，發現真實，並實現保障人權價值在內的司法正義（司法院大法官釋字第 392 號參照）。因此，在追求法律意旨實現的誡命下，司法人員人事條例第 3 條將檢察官與法官合稱為「司法官」，實屬妥適。由於檢察官在刑事程序的任務趨近於法官，自須使檢察官猶如法官般地，得以依其確信認事用法。檢察官不同於一般行政公務員，對於上級指令權的限制，亦不能只求不違背法令即可，而須考量到檢察官的司法屬性。據此，檢察首長不應透過指令權強迫檢察官違反自己確信行事，如欲貫徹自己觀點，亦只能行使職務承繼權、職務移轉權，以維持檢察官的司法屬性。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
Prosecutor, as the guardian of law subduing between judiciary and police, may not only comply with objective obligation principle of legality, but especially regard demonstrating the legal value as their essential mission. In contrary, executive official, who regards the law as a bound toward the policies, is fundamentally distinct from prosecution system. Under the scheme of separation of powers in constitution, prosecutor was assigned to the executive branch, so the Section 7 (Judiciary) did not include prosecution system within; hence, Constitution Article 80 only dictated that judges shall hold trials independently. Besides, Legislative Yuan had separately entitled the right of instruction and supervision and the right to take over or commission official tasks to prosecutor general and chief prosecutor in Article 63 and 64 of Court Constitution Act. However, within discharging duty in criminal roceedings, prosecutors and judges are both regarded as the generalized judiciary, which counterbalanced and duty-divided with each other to discover the legal fact within cases, and to accomplish the judicial justice and the human right protection (see Interpretation No. 392 of Judicial Yuan). Thus, at the behest of the law, it is accurate to position prosecutor and judge as “judicature” jointly in Article 3 of Jurisdiction Personnel Management Act. There is an obligation for prosecutors to identify cases within the opinio juris, since the role of prosecutor resemble judges under the criminal proceedings. Consequently, the restriction on the right to command between superior and subordinate prosecutor could not only submit to the law, but also ponder the character as judicature, which significantly dissimilar from general executive public official. Whereupon, prosecutor general could not oblige subordinate prosecutors to alter their opinio juris by the right to command. So as to the implementation of the opinio juris of prosecutor general himself/herself, in case of discrediting the judicature character of prosecutor, he/she could only exercise the right to retract or transfer.<br />
<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396864923744604160&type=s檢察官定位與指令拘束──德國法的視角啟發
- <![CDATA[論美國食品輸入的「免驗查扣」制度]]>科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;">“Detention Without Physical Examination” in the American Food Importing System</span></span><br />
作者：</strong>陳鋕雄<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201809<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>免驗查扣；邊境查驗；舉證責任；不法外觀；食品安全；Detention Without Physical Examination；Border Inspection；Burden of Proof；Appear to Be Adulterated；Food Safety<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
免驗查扣制度目的在於以預警角度，避免美國國內消費者因食用問題食品、藥品而受有損害。該制度能使美國食品藥物監督管理局（Food and Drug Administration, FDA）以快速警示之方式，將問題食品扣留於邊境，以保護美國國內消費者不會購買到問題食品及藥品。該制度雖具快速、經濟之特色，惟其本質上仍有侷限，如無法即時發現問題食品來源，導致無法有效杜絕問題食品的進口；或構成世界貿易組織（World Trade Organization, WTO）規定的貿易障礙。惟此制度賦予 FDA 極大權限，使 FDA 無須嚴謹證據，基於進口食品表徵上似有違法即可直接將產品於邊境扣留並禁止進口，可轉移進口國的舉證責任，將政治爭議導入法律程序解決。本文撰寫目的乃為瞭解美國免驗查扣制度之運作，另一方面淺析此制度於實務運作上之問題，並為我國提出更具體、更全面的制度性介紹及建議。故撰文架構將從免驗查扣制度介紹，重要案例探討免驗查扣制度之運作及問題，最後討論該制度在WTO 架構下的爭議。結論中將比較我國現行制度與免驗查扣制度之差異，提出修法建議以消弭食安爭議。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
The purpose of the “detention without physical examination” (DWPE) rules is based on the precautionary perspective to prevent the American consumers from injuries due to defective food or drug products. The system enables the Food and Drug Administration detent problematic products in borders through promulgating import alerts. The system has the benefits of quickness and efficiency. However, the system has shortcomings including the timing to discover problematic products and the potential to be deemed as unreasonable trade obstacles under the legal framework of the World Trade Organization. But the system authorizes the FDA the power to detent products in the borderlines and prohibited them from being imported without any prudent evidence or even only based on the appearance of the products. This approach may shift the burden of proof from the importing country and to prevent political disputes by legal mechanisms. The purpose of this article is to understand the DWPE system, to analyze the problems of the system, and to purpose recommendations to transplant this system to Taiwan. The article will first introduce the DWPE system, analyze important cases, then discuss the disputes under the WTO framework. In conclusion, the article will compare the difference between the Taiwan’s importing rules and the DWPE system, and provide legislative amendment recommendations to solve the food safety disputes.<br />
<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[美國與臺灣專利民事侵權訴訟爭點效之發展與爭議──兼論臺灣專利無效雙軌制之困境]]>科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;">The Development and Disputes of Issue Preclusion in Civil Patent Litigation in the U.S. and Taiwan–Dilemma Resulting from Patent Invalidity Two-track System in Taiwan</span></span><br />
作者：</strong>楊智傑<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201809<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>專利民事訴訟；附隨禁反言；爭點排除效；專利無效；司法二元化；Patent Civil Litigation；Collateral Estoppel；Issue Preclusion；Patent Invalid；Dual Judiciary System<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
所謂附隨禁反言，又稱為爭點排除效。美國專利侵權訴訟中爭執之專利一旦被判定無效，基於附隨禁反言，該無效判決則產生對世效力。1971 年，美國最高法院就 Blonder-Tongue v. University of Illinois Foundation 一案判決，改變過去見解，判決中提及專利權人在一終局並得上訴之判決中被認定無效之專利權人，被禁止再對他人主張專利權。隨後，此一附隨禁反言之適用範圍，從專利無效之認定，擴大到專利侵權及不侵權之認定，以及專利請求項之解釋。本文研究美國法院一系列之判決發展，討論專利訴訟之附隨禁反言之範圍與發展。並藉由美國附隨禁反言之概念，回頭檢討臺灣智慧財產法院之相關運作。臺灣目前問題有二：1.基於司法二元化之結構，民事專利無效判決無法讓該專利真的無效；2.專利權人對上游廠商而法院判決不侵權後，卻轉而對下游廠商提告之問題。本文將比較日本、臺灣、德國、美國之專利無效雙軌制度，並檢討臺灣制度之問題。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
In civil procedure in U.S., there is a principle of collateral estoppel, also called as issue preclusion. When a patent be declared invalid in a civil litigation opinion by court, principle of collateral estoppel would prevent the patent owner litigate on the patent again. In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court decides the case Blonder-Tongue vs. University of Illinois Foundation, overruling the old principle mutuality of estoppel, held that once a patent owner’s patent be declared as invalid, he can’t bring infringement suit against other implementers any more. Afterwards, the scope of principle of collateral estoppel extended to the issue of infringement or not infringement of patent, and issue of patent claim interpretation. For the purpose of understanding development and scope of principle of collateral estoppel in patent context in U.S., several important cases in U.S. courts will be studied. Furthermore, we will compare the operation of Taiwan IP court with the U.S. There are two situations problematic in Taiwan: 1. For reasons of dual judiciary system in Taiwan, court decision in civil proceeding declare a patent invalid actually not yet invalidate that patent forever. 2. After a patent owner lose his suit against upstream company alleged infringing patent, he can then bring suit against downstream company. In the end, the two-track invalidation system of Japan, Taiwan, German, and U.S. will be compared, to find what the problems and dilemma in Taiwan’s patent invalidation system.<br />
<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[鑑識會計實務中無資力被告專家證人訴訟支援權之研究]]>科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;">The Right of the Indigent Defendant to Expert Assistance in the Criminal Cases</span></span><br />
作者：</strong>邱筱雯<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201809<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>專家證人；財經犯罪；鑑識會計；訴訟支援權；無資力被告；Expert Witness；Financial Crime；Forensic Accounting；Litigation Support；Indigent Defendant<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
本文透過比較法分析，簡介美國法上之專家證人制度與專家證人報酬之給付，並由美國法上標竿案例 Ake v. Oklahoma 案談起，探討無資力之被告在刑事訴訟案件中是否具有專家證人訴訟支援權、其權利之範圍，以及在肯認具有專家證人訴訟支援權之前提下，應如何尋找有意願之專家證人及其專家報酬之經費來源。針對我國現行財經刑事訴訟支援之實務運作，本文透過質性訪談研究方法，訪談具有鑑定人經驗之會計教授、會計師，以及財經刑事訴訟律師，透過其等對於實務運作現況之觀察與評析，探討我國於財經刑事訴訟案件中無資力被告聘請鑑定人訴訟支援之需求性、尋求鑑定人之管道、鑑定人報酬之給付與經費來源、應否賦予被告選任鑑定人之權利，以及點出我國刑事訴訟制度中可能存在檢察官裁量權應否擴大、認罪協商制度之落實、法院詰問制度之運作等議題，以就我國現行實務運作現況為呈現，並為我國學術與實務界之參考。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
This article introduces the expert witness in the United States legal system and analyzes the leading case: Ake v. Oklahoma. The purpose of this research is to study whether an indigent defendant has the right to expert assistance in the criminal cases. To be more specific, how they can exercise this right, how to find an expert who has the willingness to assist the case, and what is the financial resource to support this legal system. To deeply understand the legal system and litigation situation in Taiwan, this study adopted the interview research method and provided the perspective of accounting professor, accountant, and the litigation attorney. Based on their professional opinion, to further analyze the demands of the indigent defendant to hire an expert, whether should the legal system to endow defendant the right to elect their expert. On the other hand, it probably exists some critical issues in Taiwan’s legal system, such as the discretion of the prosecutor, the plea bargaining system and the right of Judges to interrogate the expert witness.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>