Newsletter
FTL ARTICLE 26 AND ADMIN-ISTRATIVE SUITS
Administrative suits allowed under the current Code of Administrative Procedure can be broadly divided into three categories: suits for revocation, suits for fulfilment of obligations, and suits for performance. Article 5 Paragraph 2 of the code provides that where an application lawfully made to a central or a local government agency has been rejected, and the applicant be-lieves that his rights or legitimate interests have been unlawfully harmed, after exhausting the administrative appeals procedure the applicant may bring an administrative suit in the High Administrative Court to request that the admin-istrative agency render a decision or perform a specific action. This is a suit for fulfilment of obligations.
In this context, "lawful application" means an application made under a statutory right to re-quest an action of an administrative agency, i.e. where there is a basis in law for requesting an administrative agency to make a disposition to the benefit of the applicant. Meanwhile, Article 26 of the Fair Trade Law (FTL) provides that the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) may investigate and deal with, upon complaint or ex officio, any violation of the provisions of the FTL that harms the public interest. Whether this provides a legal basis for the public to bring administrative suits against the FTC for fulfilment of obligations is a matter on which opinions diverge both in theory and in practice.
Lee and Li recently handled an administrative suit where the plaintiff had filed a complaint to the FTC alleging plagiarism in violation of FTL Article 20 Paragraph 1. The Taipei High Ad-ministrative Court took a negative view of the above question: it upheld the plaintiff's petition to set aside the FTC's original finding and the subsequent administrative appeal decision that the party complained against had not violated the law, but it rejected the plaintiff's petition for it to order the FTC to make a new finding to the effect that the party complained against contravened Articles 20 and 24 of the FTL, or to make an-other lawful disposition.
Although the court overturned the FTC's original decision and the administrative appeal decision, thus reopening the original complaint, it took the view that because the FTC was not under a legal duty to render a decision with regard to the complaint, the FTC was free to weigh the facts of the case and decide for itself whether to make a new ruling. This outcome is highly noteworthy, as it will greatly affect the interests of com-plainants.
It remains to be seen whether the above ruling will set a general precedent. To protect their interests in similar future cases, apart from seeking remedies through administrative litiga-tion, complainants might also consider bringing a civil action to halt infringement and seek damages. However, they should note the time limits that the FTL sets for such claims.