重要實務
【高雄-帝謙法律事務所/土地重要實務(46)】道交條例禁止騎樓設攤之規定合憲。
2014.4.17 高雄律師-楊岡儒律師
發文單位：司法院
解釋字號：釋字第564號
解釋日期：民國92年8月8日
解釋爭點：道交條例禁止騎樓設攤之規定違憲？
資料來源：
司法周刊 第 1146 期 1 版
司法院公報 第 45 卷 9 期 12-21 頁
司法院大法官解釋（十六）（99年5月版）第 163-177 頁
考選周刊 第 927 期 2 版
法令月刊 第 54 卷 9 期 99-100 頁
總統府公報 第 6542 號 16-35 頁
法務部公報 第 313 期 66-76 頁
相關法條：
中華民國憲法 第 110、15、23 條 ( 36.01.01 )
中華民國憲法增修條文 第 9 條 ( 89.04.25 )
地方制度法 第 19 條 ( 88.01.25 )
道路交通管理處罰條例 第 3、82、83 條 ( 92.01.02 )
解釋文：
人民之財產權應予保障，憲法第十五條設有明文。惟基於增進公共利益之必要，對人民依法取得之土地所有權，國家並非不得以法律為合理之限制。道路交通管理處罰 條例第八十二條第一項第十款規定，在公告禁止設攤之處擺設攤位者，主管機關除責令行為人即時停止並消除障礙外，處行為人或其雇主新台幣一千二百元以上二千 四百元以下罰鍰，就私有土地言，雖係限制土地所有人財產權之行使，然其目的係為維持人車通行之順暢，且此限制對土地之利用尚屬輕微，未逾越比例原則，與憲法保障財產權之意旨並無牴觸。
行政機關之公告行為如對人民財產權之行使有所限制，法律就該公告行為之要件及標準，須具體明確規定，前揭道路交通管理處罰條例第八十二條第一項第十款授予行政機關公告禁止設攤之權限，自應以維持交通秩序之必要為限。該條例第三條第一款所稱騎樓既屬道路，其所有人於建築之初即負有供公眾通行之義務，原則上未經許可即不得擺設攤位，是主管機關依上揭條文為禁止設攤之公告或為道路擺設攤位之許可(參照同條例第八十三條第二款)，均係對人民財產權行使之限制，其公告行為之作成，宜審酌准否設攤地區之交通流量、道路寬度或禁止之時段等因素而為之，前開條例第八十二條第一項第十款規定尚欠具體明確，相關機關應儘速檢討修正，或以其他法律為更具體之規範。
理由書：
人民之財產權應予保障，憲法第十五條設有明文。惟基於增進公共利益之必要，對人民依法取得之土地所有權，國家並非不得以法律為合理之限制，此項限制究至何種 程度始逾人民財產權所應忍受之範圍，應就行為之目的與限制手段及其所造成之結果予以衡量，如手段對於目的而言尚屬適當，且限制對土地之利用至為輕微，則屬人民享受財產權同時所應負擔之社會義務，國家以法律所為之合理限制即與憲法保障人民財產權之本旨不相牴觸。
騎樓通道建造係為供公眾通行之用者，所有人雖不因此完全喪失管理、使用、收益、處分之權能，但其利用行為原則上不得有礙於通行，道路交通管理處罰條例第三條 第一款即本此而將騎樓納入道路管制措施之適用範圍。同條例第八十二條第一項第十款規定在公告禁止設攤之處擺設攤位者，主管機關除責令行為人即時停止並消除障礙外，並處行為人或其雇主新台幣一千二百元以上二千四百元以下罰鍰；又依同條例第八十三條第二款，未經許可在道路擺設攤位不聽勸阻者，處所有人新台幣三百元以上六百元以下罰鍰，並責令撤除。上述規定均以限制騎樓設攤，維護道路暢通為目的，尚屬適當。主管機關依上開條例第八十二條第一項第十款之規定公告禁 止在特定路段設攤，係以提高罰鍰以加強交通管理，雖皆非為限制人民財產權而設，然適用於具體個案則有造成限制人民財產權之結果。故於衡酌其限制之適當性外，並應考量所造成損害之程度。按上開規定所限制者為所有權人未經許可之設攤行為，所有權人尚非不能依法申請准予設攤或對該土地為其他形式之利用。再鑑於騎樓所有人既為公益負有社會義務，國家則提供不同形式之優惠如賦稅減免等，以減輕其負擔。從而人民財產權因此所受之限制，尚屬輕微，自無悖於憲法第二十三條比例原則之要求，亦未逾其社會責任所應忍受之範圍，更未構成個人之特別犧牲，難謂國家對其有何補償責任存在，與憲法保障人民財產權之規定並無違背。
國家之行為如涉及限制人民權利之行使者，其要件應以法律明文定之，如授權行政機關發布相關命令或作成處分行為，其規定應具明確性，迭經本院解釋闡明在案。前揭道路交通管理處罰條例第八十二條第一項第十款授予行政機關公告禁止設攤之權限，同條例第八十三條第二款則授予行政機關為道路擺設攤位之許可，是行政機關依上開規定授權公告禁止設攤或許可擺設攤位，既均對人民財產權之行使有所影響，自應就前開條例維持交通安全秩序之立法目的，具體審酌准否設攤地區之交通流量、道路寬度、准否之時段（如特定節慶活動）等因素而為之，方副前述解釋意旨。準此，上開道路交通管理處罰條例第八十二條第一項第十款與第八十三條第一項第二款規定，就作成公告禁止設攤或許可設攤處分之構成要件，尚未達於類型化之明確程度，為使主管機關從事符合於立法本旨之適當管制，相關機關應依本解釋意 旨儘速檢討修正補充上開條例，或以其他法律為更具體之規定，俾便主管機關維護交通秩序之同時，兼顧人民之權益。又道路交通管理處罰條例以到案日期為提高罰鍰下限額度之標準，此屬法律授權主管機關就裁罰事宜所訂定之裁量基準，並未違反法律保留原則，於憲法保障人民財產權之意旨亦無牴觸，業經本院釋字第五一一號解釋在案，併此敘明。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 564
Date：2003.8.8
Issue：Does an administrative agency in charge of traffic control have the authority to permit or prohibit the placement of vendors’ stalls on arcades for the purpose of maintaining the orderly flow of traffic, thereby restraining the property right of the owners of the land on which the arcades are set up, if it is so specifically authorized by law?
Holding：
Article 15 of the Constitution contains explicit words stating that the people shall be guaranteed the right of property. Taking into consideration the necessity in the furtherance of the public interest, however, the state is not prohibited from prescribing by law reasonable restraints on land ownership lawfully acquired by the people. Under the Act Governing the Punishment of Violation of Road Traffic Regulations, Article 82, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 10, the competent authority may order a person who sets up a stall at a place where no stalls are permitted to take down the stall and get rid of any obstruction to traffic and may, in addition thereto, impose on such person or his employer a fine of not less than 1,200 and not more than 2,400 New Taiwan Dollars. While this constitutes a restriction on the exercise of the property right of the landowner in the case of private land, the purpose of such restriction is to ensure unobstructed traffic of pedestrians and vehicles and the impact thereof on land utilization is rather insignificant. Hence, such restriction has not gone beyond the principle of proportionality and is not in conflict with the purpose of the Constitution in protecting the right of property.
Where the act of announcement of an administrative agency imposes any restraint on the exercise of the property right of the people, the elements and standard required of such act of announcement must be specifically and clearly prescribed by law. The power granted to an administrative agency by the Act Governing the Punishment of Violation of Road Traffic Regulations, Article 82, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 10, to announce the prohibition of setting up stalls is certainly limited to the degree necessary for maintaining orderly traffic flow. Inasmuch as arcade is defined by Article 3, Subparagraph 1, of said Act to be a passageway, its owner has the duty from the beginning of its construction to provide for public passage, and it is in principle not usable for setting up vendors’ stalls without permission. To the extent that the announcement of the competent authority to grant or prohibit permission for the placement of stalls on such passageways based on the authority granted by the aforesaid provision (See Article 83, Subparagraph 2, of the Act) constitutes a restraint on the exercise of the property right of the people, such act of announcement may be done only upon taking into account such factors as the traffic flow and width of the road in the area where stalls are prohibited or permitted and the specific hours during which stalls are prohibited. The provision of said Article 82, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 10, being insufficiently specific and clear, the competent authority must make prompt review and revision of the provision or alternatively make more specific prescription through the enactment of separate laws.
Reasoning：
Article 15 of the Constitution contains explicit words stating that the people shall be guaranteed the right of property. Taking into consideration the necessity in the furtherance of the public interest, however, the state is not prohibited from prescribing by law reasonable restraints on land ownership lawfully acquired by the people. Nevertheless, the question of how far such restraints may go so that they will not exceed the degree of toleration which the property right of the people should undergo must be weighed against the purpose of the act, the means of restriction, and the impact of such restraint. If the means is appropriate in relation to the purpose, and the impact of the restriction on the use of the land is rather insignificant, then such restriction is a social obligation that the people should assume while enjoying the right of property, and the restriction, being imposed by the state under law to a reasonable degree, is not in conflict with the purpose of the Constitution in protecting the property right of the people.
While the owner of an arcade constructed so as to allow passage by the public is not deprived of his right and capacity to manage, make use of, collect profits from, and dispose of the same, his act of utilization thereof should not in principle obstruct the passage. This is the reason for which it is included in the Act Governing the Punishment of Violation of Road Traffic Regulations, Article 3, Subparagraph 1, as a road to be put under control thereunder. Under said Act, Article 82, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 10, the competent authority may order a person who sets up a stall at a place where no stalls are permitted to take down the stall and get rid of any obstruction to traffic and may, in addition thereto, impose on such person or his employer a fine of not less than 1,200 and not more than 2,400 New Taiwan Dollars. Furthermore, under Article 83, Subparagraph 2, of said Act, a person who sets up a stall on the passageway or road and refuses to take it down may be fined for an amount of not less than 300 and not more than 600 New Taiwan Dollars and may additionally be ordered to remove the stall. All such provisions are designed to put a restriction on setting up stalls on arcades to ensure unobstructed traffic flow and are thus appropriate. Although the announcement of the competent authority issued under Article 82, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 10, of said Act to prohibit the setting up of stalls on particular roads or sections of roads is intended to raise the amounts of fine for the purpose of strengthening traffic control rather than imposing a restraint on the property right of the people, its application to individual cases does result in restraint on the property right of the people. Thus, when considering the appropriateness of such restraint, the degree of damage it may cause must also be taken into account. To the extent that the act of the owner bound by the restrictive provisions cited above is the setting up of a stall without permission, the owner is not banned from filing an application under law for a permit to set up a stall or to make other use of the land. Furthermore, in light of the social responsibility assumed by the owner of an arcade for public interest, the state is offering various types of incentives such as tax exemption or reduction to alleviate his burden. This makes the restraint on the property right of the people rather insignificant and is thus not in conflict with the principle of proportionality embodied in Article 23 of the Constitution; nor does it go beyond the degree of toleration that should be taken in light of social responsibility or call for any special sacrifice from individuals for which the state is bound to provide compensation. We do not find such restriction to be contrary to the Constitutional provision for protecting the property right of the people.
We have made it repeatedly clear in our Interpretations that if the act of the state involves any constraint on the exercise of any right of the people, the prerequisites for taking such act must be explicitly prescribed by law and that when an administrative agency is authorized by law to issue relevant ordinances or to take any action the law must be clear and specific. As the Act Governing the Punishment of Violation of Road Traffic Regulations grants an administrative agency under Article 82, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 10, the power to issue announcements to prohibit the setting up of stalls and under Article 83, Subparagraph 2, the authority to permit the setting up of stalls, such announcements issued by an administrative agency under said provisions to prohibit or permit the placement of stalls, to the extent that it affects the exercise of the property right of the people, may be made only after realistic review of such factors as the traffic flow and width of the road in the respective area open or closed for stalls and the hours during which stalls are prohibited or permitted (e.g., holidays, festivals) in light of the legislative purpose of said Act for maintaining a safe, orderly traffic flow to make them consistent with the essence of our opinion given above. That being so, we do not believe that the provisions of the Act Governing the Punishment of Violation of Road Traffic Regulations, Article 82, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 10, and Article 83, Subparagraph 2, aresufficiently clear and precise by way of categorization of the elements required for issuing announcements to prohibit or permit vendors’ stalls. To enable the competent authority to maintain appropriate control consistent with the legislative purpose, the authorities concerned must make prompt review and revision of and supplement to such provisions or alternatively make more specific prescriptions through the enactment of separate laws, so that the competent authority may take into account the rights of the people while maintaining the orderly flow of traffic. Incidentally, it has been made clear by this Yuan in our Interpretation No. 511 that the guideline set forth in said Act by which the minimum amount of fine is raised based on the date the traffic violator appears before the authority provides a criterion of penalty established by the competent authority within its power of discretion authorized by law and that such guideline is not in conflict with the principle of reservation of law (Gesetzesvorbehalt); nor is it contrary to the spirit of the Constitution in protecting the people’s right to property.
' Translated by Raymond T. Chu.
解釋字號：釋字第564號
解釋日期：民國92年8月8日
解釋爭點：道交條例禁止騎樓設攤之規定違憲？
資料來源：
司法周刊 第 1146 期 1 版
司法院公報 第 45 卷 9 期 12-21 頁
司法院大法官解釋（十六）（99年5月版）第 163-177 頁
考選周刊 第 927 期 2 版
法令月刊 第 54 卷 9 期 99-100 頁
總統府公報 第 6542 號 16-35 頁
法務部公報 第 313 期 66-76 頁
相關法條：
中華民國憲法 第 110、15、23 條 ( 36.01.01 )
中華民國憲法增修條文 第 9 條 ( 89.04.25 )
地方制度法 第 19 條 ( 88.01.25 )
道路交通管理處罰條例 第 3、82、83 條 ( 92.01.02 )
解釋文：
人民之財產權應予保障，憲法第十五條設有明文。惟基於增進公共利益之必要，對人民依法取得之土地所有權，國家並非不得以法律為合理之限制。道路交通管理處罰 條例第八十二條第一項第十款規定，在公告禁止設攤之處擺設攤位者，主管機關除責令行為人即時停止並消除障礙外，處行為人或其雇主新台幣一千二百元以上二千 四百元以下罰鍰，就私有土地言，雖係限制土地所有人財產權之行使，然其目的係為維持人車通行之順暢，且此限制對土地之利用尚屬輕微，未逾越比例原則，與憲法保障財產權之意旨並無牴觸。
行政機關之公告行為如對人民財產權之行使有所限制，法律就該公告行為之要件及標準，須具體明確規定，前揭道路交通管理處罰條例第八十二條第一項第十款授予行政機關公告禁止設攤之權限，自應以維持交通秩序之必要為限。該條例第三條第一款所稱騎樓既屬道路，其所有人於建築之初即負有供公眾通行之義務，原則上未經許可即不得擺設攤位，是主管機關依上揭條文為禁止設攤之公告或為道路擺設攤位之許可(參照同條例第八十三條第二款)，均係對人民財產權行使之限制，其公告行為之作成，宜審酌准否設攤地區之交通流量、道路寬度或禁止之時段等因素而為之，前開條例第八十二條第一項第十款規定尚欠具體明確，相關機關應儘速檢討修正，或以其他法律為更具體之規範。
理由書：
人民之財產權應予保障，憲法第十五條設有明文。惟基於增進公共利益之必要，對人民依法取得之土地所有權，國家並非不得以法律為合理之限制，此項限制究至何種 程度始逾人民財產權所應忍受之範圍，應就行為之目的與限制手段及其所造成之結果予以衡量，如手段對於目的而言尚屬適當，且限制對土地之利用至為輕微，則屬人民享受財產權同時所應負擔之社會義務，國家以法律所為之合理限制即與憲法保障人民財產權之本旨不相牴觸。
騎樓通道建造係為供公眾通行之用者，所有人雖不因此完全喪失管理、使用、收益、處分之權能，但其利用行為原則上不得有礙於通行，道路交通管理處罰條例第三條 第一款即本此而將騎樓納入道路管制措施之適用範圍。同條例第八十二條第一項第十款規定在公告禁止設攤之處擺設攤位者，主管機關除責令行為人即時停止並消除障礙外，並處行為人或其雇主新台幣一千二百元以上二千四百元以下罰鍰；又依同條例第八十三條第二款，未經許可在道路擺設攤位不聽勸阻者，處所有人新台幣三百元以上六百元以下罰鍰，並責令撤除。上述規定均以限制騎樓設攤，維護道路暢通為目的，尚屬適當。主管機關依上開條例第八十二條第一項第十款之規定公告禁 止在特定路段設攤，係以提高罰鍰以加強交通管理，雖皆非為限制人民財產權而設，然適用於具體個案則有造成限制人民財產權之結果。故於衡酌其限制之適當性外，並應考量所造成損害之程度。按上開規定所限制者為所有權人未經許可之設攤行為，所有權人尚非不能依法申請准予設攤或對該土地為其他形式之利用。再鑑於騎樓所有人既為公益負有社會義務，國家則提供不同形式之優惠如賦稅減免等，以減輕其負擔。從而人民財產權因此所受之限制，尚屬輕微，自無悖於憲法第二十三條比例原則之要求，亦未逾其社會責任所應忍受之範圍，更未構成個人之特別犧牲，難謂國家對其有何補償責任存在，與憲法保障人民財產權之規定並無違背。
國家之行為如涉及限制人民權利之行使者，其要件應以法律明文定之，如授權行政機關發布相關命令或作成處分行為，其規定應具明確性，迭經本院解釋闡明在案。前揭道路交通管理處罰條例第八十二條第一項第十款授予行政機關公告禁止設攤之權限，同條例第八十三條第二款則授予行政機關為道路擺設攤位之許可，是行政機關依上開規定授權公告禁止設攤或許可擺設攤位，既均對人民財產權之行使有所影響，自應就前開條例維持交通安全秩序之立法目的，具體審酌准否設攤地區之交通流量、道路寬度、准否之時段（如特定節慶活動）等因素而為之，方副前述解釋意旨。準此，上開道路交通管理處罰條例第八十二條第一項第十款與第八十三條第一項第二款規定，就作成公告禁止設攤或許可設攤處分之構成要件，尚未達於類型化之明確程度，為使主管機關從事符合於立法本旨之適當管制，相關機關應依本解釋意 旨儘速檢討修正補充上開條例，或以其他法律為更具體之規定，俾便主管機關維護交通秩序之同時，兼顧人民之權益。又道路交通管理處罰條例以到案日期為提高罰鍰下限額度之標準，此屬法律授權主管機關就裁罰事宜所訂定之裁量基準，並未違反法律保留原則，於憲法保障人民財產權之意旨亦無牴觸，業經本院釋字第五一一號解釋在案，併此敘明。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 564
Date：2003.8.8
Issue：Does an administrative agency in charge of traffic control have the authority to permit or prohibit the placement of vendors’ stalls on arcades for the purpose of maintaining the orderly flow of traffic, thereby restraining the property right of the owners of the land on which the arcades are set up, if it is so specifically authorized by law?
Holding：
Article 15 of the Constitution contains explicit words stating that the people shall be guaranteed the right of property. Taking into consideration the necessity in the furtherance of the public interest, however, the state is not prohibited from prescribing by law reasonable restraints on land ownership lawfully acquired by the people. Under the Act Governing the Punishment of Violation of Road Traffic Regulations, Article 82, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 10, the competent authority may order a person who sets up a stall at a place where no stalls are permitted to take down the stall and get rid of any obstruction to traffic and may, in addition thereto, impose on such person or his employer a fine of not less than 1,200 and not more than 2,400 New Taiwan Dollars. While this constitutes a restriction on the exercise of the property right of the landowner in the case of private land, the purpose of such restriction is to ensure unobstructed traffic of pedestrians and vehicles and the impact thereof on land utilization is rather insignificant. Hence, such restriction has not gone beyond the principle of proportionality and is not in conflict with the purpose of the Constitution in protecting the right of property.
Where the act of announcement of an administrative agency imposes any restraint on the exercise of the property right of the people, the elements and standard required of such act of announcement must be specifically and clearly prescribed by law. The power granted to an administrative agency by the Act Governing the Punishment of Violation of Road Traffic Regulations, Article 82, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 10, to announce the prohibition of setting up stalls is certainly limited to the degree necessary for maintaining orderly traffic flow. Inasmuch as arcade is defined by Article 3, Subparagraph 1, of said Act to be a passageway, its owner has the duty from the beginning of its construction to provide for public passage, and it is in principle not usable for setting up vendors’ stalls without permission. To the extent that the announcement of the competent authority to grant or prohibit permission for the placement of stalls on such passageways based on the authority granted by the aforesaid provision (See Article 83, Subparagraph 2, of the Act) constitutes a restraint on the exercise of the property right of the people, such act of announcement may be done only upon taking into account such factors as the traffic flow and width of the road in the area where stalls are prohibited or permitted and the specific hours during which stalls are prohibited. The provision of said Article 82, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 10, being insufficiently specific and clear, the competent authority must make prompt review and revision of the provision or alternatively make more specific prescription through the enactment of separate laws.
Reasoning：
Article 15 of the Constitution contains explicit words stating that the people shall be guaranteed the right of property. Taking into consideration the necessity in the furtherance of the public interest, however, the state is not prohibited from prescribing by law reasonable restraints on land ownership lawfully acquired by the people. Nevertheless, the question of how far such restraints may go so that they will not exceed the degree of toleration which the property right of the people should undergo must be weighed against the purpose of the act, the means of restriction, and the impact of such restraint. If the means is appropriate in relation to the purpose, and the impact of the restriction on the use of the land is rather insignificant, then such restriction is a social obligation that the people should assume while enjoying the right of property, and the restriction, being imposed by the state under law to a reasonable degree, is not in conflict with the purpose of the Constitution in protecting the property right of the people.
While the owner of an arcade constructed so as to allow passage by the public is not deprived of his right and capacity to manage, make use of, collect profits from, and dispose of the same, his act of utilization thereof should not in principle obstruct the passage. This is the reason for which it is included in the Act Governing the Punishment of Violation of Road Traffic Regulations, Article 3, Subparagraph 1, as a road to be put under control thereunder. Under said Act, Article 82, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 10, the competent authority may order a person who sets up a stall at a place where no stalls are permitted to take down the stall and get rid of any obstruction to traffic and may, in addition thereto, impose on such person or his employer a fine of not less than 1,200 and not more than 2,400 New Taiwan Dollars. Furthermore, under Article 83, Subparagraph 2, of said Act, a person who sets up a stall on the passageway or road and refuses to take it down may be fined for an amount of not less than 300 and not more than 600 New Taiwan Dollars and may additionally be ordered to remove the stall. All such provisions are designed to put a restriction on setting up stalls on arcades to ensure unobstructed traffic flow and are thus appropriate. Although the announcement of the competent authority issued under Article 82, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 10, of said Act to prohibit the setting up of stalls on particular roads or sections of roads is intended to raise the amounts of fine for the purpose of strengthening traffic control rather than imposing a restraint on the property right of the people, its application to individual cases does result in restraint on the property right of the people. Thus, when considering the appropriateness of such restraint, the degree of damage it may cause must also be taken into account. To the extent that the act of the owner bound by the restrictive provisions cited above is the setting up of a stall without permission, the owner is not banned from filing an application under law for a permit to set up a stall or to make other use of the land. Furthermore, in light of the social responsibility assumed by the owner of an arcade for public interest, the state is offering various types of incentives such as tax exemption or reduction to alleviate his burden. This makes the restraint on the property right of the people rather insignificant and is thus not in conflict with the principle of proportionality embodied in Article 23 of the Constitution; nor does it go beyond the degree of toleration that should be taken in light of social responsibility or call for any special sacrifice from individuals for which the state is bound to provide compensation. We do not find such restriction to be contrary to the Constitutional provision for protecting the property right of the people.
We have made it repeatedly clear in our Interpretations that if the act of the state involves any constraint on the exercise of any right of the people, the prerequisites for taking such act must be explicitly prescribed by law and that when an administrative agency is authorized by law to issue relevant ordinances or to take any action the law must be clear and specific. As the Act Governing the Punishment of Violation of Road Traffic Regulations grants an administrative agency under Article 82, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 10, the power to issue announcements to prohibit the setting up of stalls and under Article 83, Subparagraph 2, the authority to permit the setting up of stalls, such announcements issued by an administrative agency under said provisions to prohibit or permit the placement of stalls, to the extent that it affects the exercise of the property right of the people, may be made only after realistic review of such factors as the traffic flow and width of the road in the respective area open or closed for stalls and the hours during which stalls are prohibited or permitted (e.g., holidays, festivals) in light of the legislative purpose of said Act for maintaining a safe, orderly traffic flow to make them consistent with the essence of our opinion given above. That being so, we do not believe that the provisions of the Act Governing the Punishment of Violation of Road Traffic Regulations, Article 82, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 10, and Article 83, Subparagraph 2, aresufficiently clear and precise by way of categorization of the elements required for issuing announcements to prohibit or permit vendors’ stalls. To enable the competent authority to maintain appropriate control consistent with the legislative purpose, the authorities concerned must make prompt review and revision of and supplement to such provisions or alternatively make more specific prescriptions through the enactment of separate laws, so that the competent authority may take into account the rights of the people while maintaining the orderly flow of traffic. Incidentally, it has been made clear by this Yuan in our Interpretation No. 511 that the guideline set forth in said Act by which the minimum amount of fine is raised based on the date the traffic violator appears before the authority provides a criterion of penalty established by the competent authority within its power of discretion authorized by law and that such guideline is not in conflict with the principle of reservation of law (Gesetzesvorbehalt); nor is it contrary to the spirit of the Constitution in protecting the people’s right to property.
' Translated by Raymond T. Chu.
今日瀏覽人數：22437 總瀏覽人數：9712672
|
帝謙高雄法律事務所 | 關於高雄律師 | 高雄法律顧問 | 高雄律師服務項目 | 不動產律師 | 高雄律師專欄 | 高雄律師法律諮詢 | 高雄律師最新消息 | 聯絡高雄律師 |
|
電話：(07)558-9090 傳真：(07)558-9010 地址：813 高雄市左營區明華一路350號11樓之2  Copyright © 2013-2015 Deep-Change Law Firm, All Rights Reserved 網頁設計:uuTaiwan |
友情連結 |
帝謙法律事務所是國內專業的律師事務所，我們提供專業的法律諮詢、民事訴訟、刑事訴訟、行政訴訟訴願、保險理賠、撰寫存證信函、律師信函、不動產法律、遺產繼承規劃、常年法律顧問、契約撰擬…及其他法律專案，高雄律師團隊經驗豐富、辦案認真，積極處理並以同理心處理每個客戶所委託的案件。