我國都市更新法制之研究-以正當程序與司法審查及救濟為中心

Abstract

2012年3月28日發生了「文林苑」都市更新強拆爭議事件，過程中歷經了抗爭、協商、興訟後，最後在2014年3月14號最後之不同意戶拆除組合屋後落幕，但其後發揮的效應促成了大法官釋字第709號解釋，釋憲內容對於舊都更條例有關主管機關核准都市更新事業概要之程序規定，未設置適當組織以審議都市更新事業概要，且未確保利害關係人知悉相關資訊及適時陳述意見之機會，與憲法要求之正當行政程序不符。有關申請核准都市更新事業概要時應具備之同意比率之規定，不符憲法要求之正當行政程序。且並未要求主管機關應將該計畫相關資訊，對更新單元內申請人以外之其他土地及合法建築物所有權人分別為送達，且未規定由主管機關以公開方式舉辦聽證，亦不符憲法要求之正當行政程序。 而我國於108年修正通過之現行都更條例，為落實釋字第709號解釋之精神，就增強都更信任、連結都市計畫、精進爭議處理、簡明都更程序、強化政府主導、協助更新整合、擴大金融參與、保障民眾權益等為修正方向，而對於修正後之都更條例是否已然將先前存有之公益性模糊、正當程序不足、實務爭議不斷等問題做一解決，本文將透過都市更新的憲法基礎與公益性進行分析，進而帶出都市更新法制與國土計畫法、都市計畫法之連結，並將都市更新法制內部結構作解析，在帶出正當程序原則對於我國都市更新實務的重要性，最後在司法機關對於機關判斷餘地及公益性的審查、實務判決累積的理論及經驗作一法實證分析，以期能對於未來我國都市更新之新紀元作出微薄之貢獻。

On March 28, 2012, the 'Wenlin Court' urban renewal forced demolition dispute occurred. After the struggle, negotiation and litigation in the process. Finally, on March 14, 2014, the final disagreement ended after the households demolished the combined house. However, the subsequent effects contributed to the J.Y interpretation NO.709. The contents of the Constitutional Interpretation of the Old Capital Reform Regulations stipulate the procedures for the competent authority to approve the outline of the urban renewal business. Failure to set up an appropriate organization for deliberation, and failure to ensure that stakeholders have the opportunity to know relevant information and present opinions in a timely manner, which is inconsistent with the legitimate administrative procedures required by the Constitution. The provisions of the consent rate that should be available when applying for approval of the urban renewal business outline do not conform to the constitutional due process. There is no requirement that the competent authority should serve the relevant information of the plan to the owners of land and legal buildings other than the applicants in the update unit, and there is no provision for the competent authority to hold public hearings. The legitimate administrative procedures that do not meet the requirements of the Constitution. The current law passed by the amendment is to implement the spirit of the the J.Y interpretation NO.709. Amendments include increasing trust in the city, linking urban projects, improving dispute handling, simplifying the procedures in the city, strengthening government leadership, assisting in updating and integrating, expanding financial participation, and protecting the rights and interests of the public. Whether the amended laws and regulations have resolved the previously existing public welfare ambiguity, due process is insufficient, and practical disputes continue to be resolved. Analysis of the constitutional foundation and public welfare of urban renewal. The importance of proposing the principle of due process for the practice of urban renewal in my country. Finally, the judiciary examines the judgment of the agency. Finally look forward to a meager contribution to the future urban renewal in my country.