行政機關因檢舉而調查有無違法事實，作成處分，從一般警察到稅務、環保、建 管單位，莫不如此。但當檢舉人接到機關回函表示未對被檢舉人作成不利行政處分時，檢舉 人若不同意可否據此提起訴願，則尚須就不同情形分別分析。行政院公平交易委員會在訴願 程序上，除認檢舉人就所請求事項顯無訴願利益或已逾訴願期限外，原則上均肯定符合訴願 要件，在所有政府機關中顯得獨樹一格，這是否意味公平交易法案件確有其特殊之處，值得 深究。在最近公平會舉辦的兩場公聽會上，行政法與經濟法學者表示的見解都非常分歧，筆 者七月訪歐一再以此請教競爭法機關的處理方式，發現類此問題在其他國家竟也頗有爭議， 以下即先略述問題背景，再分從行政法與經濟法角度分析，希望能對公平會此一實務的妥當 性，全盤作一檢討。

　　　　　Whether there is an administrative act against the person or undertaking who reports a case of law violation, when the agency decides in the end not to take any action against the accused undertaking? This issue invites debates because only administrative acts, not other administratvie decisions in word or in deed, are subject to adminidtrative as well as judicial review. The practice of the FTC's Complaint Board is unique in dealing with this issue. The reply of the Commission, that it does not cat out of different reasons, is taken as an administrative act. The author argues that no action can only then be deemed as an administrative act, when the agency is obliged to act, which is not the case here. Besides, the law demands causality of the administrative act to the claimed infringement of right, while it is clear, that not the agency, but the accused undertaking has eventually done harm. And so long as all those who seek protection of the Fair Trade Law can independantly file a suit against the undertaking in the civil court, the Commission should have more discretionary power, so that the limited resources could be better allocated.