Civil Service Protection Act Article 94
This English translation was last updated on 2022-06-22, but the Chinese text was amended on 2025-07-09. Later amendments may not be reflected in the translation — please refer to the Chinese text.
While one of the following situations is met, the original action agency, the service agency, the petitioner, or the re-appellant may file for a re-consideration against the final Protection Case decision to the CSPTC, except that the petitioner has already sought for remedy in the judicial agency:1.Application of law is obviously wrong;2.The reasons of the deliberation are obviously inconsistentwith the holding;3.The decision agency is not constituted as stipulated by law;4.The Commissioner(s) required to withdraw according to this Act participates in the deliberation decision;5.The Commissioner(s) participating in the decision commits a criminal offense relating to his official duties in connection with the protection case;6.The agent or representative of the deliberation or re-appeal case commits acrime punishable by the Criminal Law in connection with the deliberation or re-appeal, and affects the decision;7.A witness, expert witness or interpreter makes false statements on his/her testimony, expert opinion or interpretation used as the basis of the decision;8.While an evidence used as the base of the decision is forged or fraudulently altered;9.A civil, criminal or administrative litigation decision or an administrative action used as the basis of the decision has been altered according to its later final judgment or administrative action;10.An evidence which was not taken into consideration or may be used as the basis of the decision is discovered, provided that, if the evidence is considered, there will be a more favorable decision; or11.A material evidence which may affect the decision has been omitted from consideration by the original decision.The filing in the preceding paragraph may still be submitted even after the original administrative action, the original management measure, the original working condition rendered, or the original decision has been completely executed.The stipulations in Subparagraph 5-8 of Paragraph 1 only apply to the final guilty decision , or the halt or discontinuation of the criminal procedure is not attributed to insufficient evidence.
中文原文 公務人員保障法第94條
保障事件經保訓會審議決定，除復審事件復審人已依法向司法機關請求救濟者外，於復審決定或再申訴決定確定後，有下列情形之一者，原處分機關、服務機關、復審人或再申訴人得向保訓會申請再審議：
一、適用法規顯有錯誤者。
二、決定理由與主文顯有矛盾者。
三、決定機關之組織不合法者。
四、依本法應迴避之委員參與決定者。
五、參與決定之委員關於該保障事件違背職務，犯刑事上之罪者。
六、復審、再申訴之代理人或代表人，關於該復審、再申訴有刑事上應罰之行為，影響於決定者。
七、證人、鑑定人或通譯就為決定基礎之證言、鑑定或通譯為虛偽陳述者。
八、為決定基礎之證物，係偽造或變造者。
九、為決定基礎之民事、刑事或行政訴訟判決或行政處分，依其後之確定裁判或行政處分已變更者。
十、發現未經斟酌之證物或得使用該證物者。
但以如經斟酌可受較有利益之決定者為限。
十一、原決定就足以影響於決定之重要證物漏未斟酌者。
前項申請於原行政處分、原管理措施、原工作條件之處置及原決定執行完畢後，亦得為之。
第一項第五款至第八款情形，以宣告有罪之判決已確定，或其刑事訴訟不能開始或續行非因證據不足者為限。
一、適用法規顯有錯誤者。
二、決定理由與主文顯有矛盾者。
三、決定機關之組織不合法者。
四、依本法應迴避之委員參與決定者。
五、參與決定之委員關於該保障事件違背職務，犯刑事上之罪者。
六、復審、再申訴之代理人或代表人，關於該復審、再申訴有刑事上應罰之行為，影響於決定者。
七、證人、鑑定人或通譯就為決定基礎之證言、鑑定或通譯為虛偽陳述者。
八、為決定基礎之證物，係偽造或變造者。
九、為決定基礎之民事、刑事或行政訴訟判決或行政處分，依其後之確定裁判或行政處分已變更者。
十、發現未經斟酌之證物或得使用該證物者。
但以如經斟酌可受較有利益之決定者為限。
十一、原決定就足以影響於決定之重要證物漏未斟酌者。
前項申請於原行政處分、原管理措施、原工作條件之處置及原決定執行完畢後，亦得為之。
第一項第五款至第八款情形，以宣告有罪之判決已確定，或其刑事訴訟不能開始或續行非因證據不足者為限。