The Supreme Administrative Court rendered the 108-Pan-301 Decision of June 18, 2019 (hereinafter, the “Decision”), holding that although the second adjudication does not change the adjudication results of the original administrative disposition, still if the adjudication reasons are changed or if contents are added, this would substantively constitute another administrative disposition and may serve as an object of an administrative action.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, the Appellant applied for a remedy and national compensation for trial cases involving improper insurgencies and the Chinese Communist Party’s spies when the martial law was still in effect in Taiwan on the ground that he had been wrongfully imprisoned due to improper trial. On March 6, 2013, he received a letter indicating that the application period under the Statute for the Remedies for Trial Cases Involving Improper Insurgencies and the Chinese Communist Party’s Spies (hereinafter, the “Remedy Statute”) had expired on December 16, 2010. The remedy foundation has been dissolved and liquidated. Subsequent business such as the handling of relevant petition cases involving the remedies was entrusted to the Appellee. The Appellant then petitioned to the Ministry of National Defense, which subsequently transferred this matter to the Appellee. The Appellee replied on April 29, 2015 once again that since a letter had been issued to the Appellant on March 6, 2013 to indicate that the Appellee was sorry that this application could not be processed since the remedy application period had expired on December 16, 2010. As a result, the Appellant brought an administrative action against the two letters pursuant to relevant procedures.
According to the Decision, the “second adjudication” refers to another adjudication based on a substantive review conducted, ex officio or upon opposition by a party, by the administrative agency on the original administrative disposition again without changing the facts and legal status of the original administrative disposition after the original disposition has formally subsisted. Even though the second adjudication does not change the adjudication results of the original administrative disposition, still if the reasons of adjudication are changed or contents are added, this would substantively constitute another administrative disposition and may serve as an object of an administrative action.
According to the Decision, it appeared that the letter of April 29, 2015 from the Appellee only reiterated the rejection indicated in the letter of March 6, 2013 from the previous remedy foundation. Whether this was an administrative disposition because of the second administrative disposition is not without question. In addition, if the Appellee’s letter of April 29, 2015 involves communication of concepts and is not an administrative disposition in nature, whether the Appellant’s action at the original trial court is legal should certainly depend on whether the letter of March 6, 2013 from the remedy foundation was subject to a lawful administrative appeal procedure. However, it turned out that the files of the original trial court did not contain a delivery certificate for the March 6, 2013 letter from the remedy foundation. Since it was still not certain if the Appellant had factually complied with the administrative appeal period, which was yet to be investigated, the original decision was reversed and remanded.