[新聞] 司法院回應考績法草案新聞稿 - 考試
By Lily
at 2010-04-02T13:04
at 2010-04-02T13:04
Table of Contents
※ [本文轉錄自 Gossiping 看板]
作者: nothingling (ling) 看板: Gossiping
標題: [新聞] 司法院回應考績法草案新聞稿
時間: Fri Apr 2 12:32:23 2010
司法院新聞稿
99年4月1日
為改善公務員服務品質,提昇國家競爭力,考試院致力於公務員考績制度的改革,司法院
表示支持。但改革的方法必須考量適用對象的屬性,為適當的規範,方能達成考績制度改
革的目的。
法官代表國家獨立行使職權,並非一般上命下從的公務員,僅有適任與不適任之分,與一
般公務員有所不同,如適用行政機關層級節制體制下的考績評比規範,規定法官至少應有
一定比率考列丙等,顯不適當。銓敘部研擬之公務人員考績法修正草案亦明白指出:「考
量司法官身分及業務特性與一般公務人員不同,法官係獨立審判,…爰明定司法官不受本
法考列丙等人數比例限制」。
對於法官如有不適任情形,應以法律規定予以淘汰,而非依比率考列丙等處理,司法院所
提法官法草案,對於法官如有不適任情形,已設計有評鑑及職務法庭懲戒等退場機制予以
規範或淘汰;同時,基於法官身分及業務特性,法官不再列有官職等,不適用公務人員考
績法,考試院及行政院均已同意此一草案,並與司法院會銜送請立法院審議,嗣因屆期不
連續,而未完成立法。目前法官法雖未制定完成,法官仍為公務人員考績法適用對象,然
於此過渡時期,公務人員考績法修正草案,實應予特別考量。考試院未採用銓敘部草案,
仍規定法官應有一定比例考列丙等。對考試院的決定,司法院表示遺憾,日後司法院將持
續推動法官淘汰機制,並於立法院審議公務人員考績法修正草案時,繼續爭取立法委員支
持,俾為適當之修正。
--
作者: nothingling (ling) 看板: Gossiping
標題: [新聞] 司法院回應考績法草案新聞稿
時間: Fri Apr 2 12:32:23 2010
司法院新聞稿
99年4月1日
為改善公務員服務品質,提昇國家競爭力,考試院致力於公務員考績制度的改革,司法院
表示支持。但改革的方法必須考量適用對象的屬性,為適當的規範,方能達成考績制度改
革的目的。
法官代表國家獨立行使職權,並非一般上命下從的公務員,僅有適任與不適任之分,與一
般公務員有所不同,如適用行政機關層級節制體制下的考績評比規範,規定法官至少應有
一定比率考列丙等,顯不適當。銓敘部研擬之公務人員考績法修正草案亦明白指出:「考
量司法官身分及業務特性與一般公務人員不同,法官係獨立審判,…爰明定司法官不受本
法考列丙等人數比例限制」。
對於法官如有不適任情形,應以法律規定予以淘汰,而非依比率考列丙等處理,司法院所
提法官法草案,對於法官如有不適任情形,已設計有評鑑及職務法庭懲戒等退場機制予以
規範或淘汰;同時,基於法官身分及業務特性,法官不再列有官職等,不適用公務人員考
績法,考試院及行政院均已同意此一草案,並與司法院會銜送請立法院審議,嗣因屆期不
連續,而未完成立法。目前法官法雖未制定完成,法官仍為公務人員考績法適用對象,然
於此過渡時期,公務人員考績法修正草案,實應予特別考量。考試院未採用銓敘部草案,
仍規定法官應有一定比例考列丙等。對考試院的決定,司法院表示遺憾,日後司法院將持
續推動法官淘汰機制,並於立法院審議公務人員考績法修正草案時,繼續爭取立法委員支
持,俾為適當之修正。
--
All Comments
By Catherine
at 2010-04-05T13:51
at 2010-04-05T13:51
By Regina
at 2010-04-10T04:40
at 2010-04-10T04:40
By Ida
at 2010-04-11T15:36
at 2010-04-11T15:36
By Heather
at 2010-04-14T16:04
at 2010-04-14T16:04
By Odelette
at 2010-04-15T01:19
at 2010-04-15T01:19
By Caitlin
at 2010-04-16T07:20
at 2010-04-16T07:20
By Necoo
at 2010-04-16T12:34
at 2010-04-16T12:34
By Oliver
at 2010-04-20T08:28
at 2010-04-20T08:28
By Ursula
at 2010-04-25T01:58
at 2010-04-25T01:58
By Anthony
at 2010-04-29T15:05
at 2010-04-29T15:05
By Jacky
at 2010-04-30T10:52
at 2010-04-30T10:52
By Heather
at 2010-05-04T17:01
at 2010-05-04T17:01
By Carolina Franco
at 2010-05-05T22:22
at 2010-05-05T22:22
By Gary
at 2010-05-10T15:57
at 2010-05-10T15:57
By David
at 2010-05-15T08:22
at 2010-05-15T08:22
By Necoo
at 2010-05-18T04:54
at 2010-05-18T04:54
By Susan
at 2010-05-22T02:18
at 2010-05-22T02:18
By Freda
at 2010-05-24T13:05
at 2010-05-24T13:05
By Hardy
at 2010-05-25T21:46
at 2010-05-25T21:46
By Connor
at 2010-05-29T07:17
at 2010-05-29T07:17
By Tristan Cohan
at 2010-05-29T21:50
at 2010-05-29T21:50
By Yuri
at 2010-06-03T00:07
at 2010-06-03T00:07
By Elizabeth
at 2010-06-07T04:34
at 2010-06-07T04:34
By Joseph
at 2010-06-09T04:44
at 2010-06-09T04:44
By Edward Lewis
at 2010-06-10T18:31
at 2010-06-10T18:31
By Xanthe
at 2010-06-10T22:26
at 2010-06-10T22:26
By Cara
at 2010-06-14T06:40
at 2010-06-14T06:40
By Audriana
at 2010-06-17T17:52
at 2010-06-17T17:52
By Sarah
at 2010-06-21T06:53
at 2010-06-21T06:53
By Ingrid
at 2010-06-23T21:50
at 2010-06-23T21:50
By Edwina
at 2010-06-24T16:07
at 2010-06-24T16:07
By Elizabeth
at 2010-06-27T02:55
at 2010-06-27T02:55
By Donna
at 2010-06-27T13:26
at 2010-06-27T13:26
By Olivia
at 2010-06-28T13:39
at 2010-06-28T13:39
By John
at 2010-07-02T08:19
at 2010-07-02T08:19
By Bethany
at 2010-07-06T14:40
at 2010-07-06T14:40
By Valerie
at 2010-07-11T05:28
at 2010-07-11T05:28
By Charlie
at 2010-07-15T22:59
at 2010-07-15T22:59
By Jacky
at 2010-07-16T14:45
at 2010-07-16T14:45
By Quintina
at 2010-07-18T02:14
at 2010-07-18T02:14
By Barb Cronin
at 2010-07-19T15:03
at 2010-07-19T15:03
By Zora
at 2010-07-22T03:23
at 2010-07-22T03:23
By Irma
at 2010-07-22T19:27
at 2010-07-22T19:27
Related Posts
重榜放棄的問題
By Frederica
at 2010-04-02T08:04
at 2010-04-02T08:04
接下來程序是立院三讀囉!?
By Edith
at 2010-04-02T07:18
at 2010-04-02T07:18
上有好者,下必甚焉!
By Valerie
at 2010-04-02T06:18
at 2010-04-02T06:18
公務員擔心的並非3%免職,而是擔心從此失去實踐正義的勇氣
By Robert
at 2010-04-02T02:10
at 2010-04-02T02:10
陳鳳馨的邏輯
By Robert
at 2010-04-02T01:56
at 2010-04-02T01:56