Frank Sun
The Supreme Court rendered the 109-Tai-Shang-2437 Decision of October 22, 2020 (hereinafter, the “Decision”), holding that although a general court is bound by an administrative court’s final adjudication in determining the illegality of an administrative disposition, still it is necessary to examine if other elements of national compensation are present, and it is not true that an illegal administrative disposition necessarily warrants national compensation.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, the Appellant asserted that the public housing unit at issue was a unit reserved for the disable which A, not a party to this lawsuit, had purchased as a person with disabilities. Pursuant to Article 67, Paragraph 2 of the People with Disabilities Rights Protection Law (hereinafter, the “Law”), other disabled people should have a preemptive right over the resale of the public housing unit at issue. A and B, not a party to the litigation, entered into a sales contract on the public housing unit at issue and agreed to a total price of NT$21.6 million before applying to the Appellee (Taipei City Government) for an announcement of permitted resale. The Appellee subsequently announced the public auction of the public housing unit at issue (hereinafter, the “Announcement at Issue”), requiring that only holders of a disability manual were eligible for the purchase. The Appellant, who was qualified, applied for a preemptive right to purchase the public housing unit at issue during the period of the announcement. The Appellee notified A to negotiate the price with the Appellant on his own and report the negotiation results. Unexpectedly, A issued a letter to reply that the agreement was not reached and requested a letter of resale of the public housing unit from the Appellee by attaching a “certificate of no agreement” (hereinafter, the “Certificate of No Agreement at Issue”), which was not signed by the Appellant. The Appellee’s disposition to approve the resale of the public housing at issue as a regular public housing unit without following the statutory procedure to ensure the Appellant’s preemptive right to purchase the public housing unit at issue pursuant to the above requirement (hereinafter, the “Disposition at Issue”) illegally violated the Appellant’s preemptive right to purchase the public housing unit at issue. The Disposition at Issue was subsequently found to be illegal in a decision handed down by the Taipei High Administrative Court, and the Appellee’s appeal was rejected by a final decision rendered by the Supreme Administrative Court. The Appellant suffered from a loss of an expected profit from the opportunity to purchase the public housing unit for a lower price. The Appellant applied to the Appellee for national compensation, but the application was rejected by the Appellee. Therefore, the Appellant sought a decision to compel the Appellee to pay for the damage, which is the price difference, in accordance with Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the National Compensation Law.
According to the Decision, in case of a national compensation lawsuit brought by a citizen on the ground of an illegal administrative disposition, if the illegality of the administrative disposition has been confirmed by an administrative court decision, although it is true based on illegal monism that a general court should basically be bound by a final decision of an administrative court in determining the illegality of an administrative disposition, still the general court should examine the existence of other elements for national compensation in such matter, and it is not true that an illegal administrative disposition necessarily warrants national compensation.
It was further indicated in the Decision that the original trial court lawfully determined, based on its exercise of authority in finding facts and citing evidence, that the Law does not specifically provide for the statutory procedure under which priority shall be given to other disabled people in the transfer of public housing units reserved for the disabled, and that there is no nationally consistent implementation standard set by the central competent authority. The Appellee’s handling procedure is generally the same as that of the Urban Development Bureau of Kaohsiung City Government in handling the procedure for transferring housing units purchased by the disabled. Moreover, when handling the resale of the public housing unit at issue, the civil servant affiliated with the Appellee had no obligation or authority to investigate if there was any sales contract between A and any third party and the contents of the sales contract. The Appellant’s complaint to compel the Urban Development Bureau of Taipei City Government to render a disposition to provide the price of the public housing unit at issue to be sold to A and to report the trading price information to the tax agency and land office was also rejected by a final decision. Therefore, the civil servant affiliated with the Appellee did not intentionally or negligently violate the Appellant’s right or have any dereliction of duty in violation of the law or and was not determined to have done anything unlawful. Therefore, the gist of the appeal is not valid.