我國民間參與公共建設（BOT）之履約爭議處理機制 －以M水力電廠為例

Abstract

公共建設之持續投入發展是國家競爭力重要指標，更是帶動國內經濟發展龍頭，惟政府公共建設財源之籌措日益困難，因此藉由引進民間資金投資公共建設，活絡國內投資市場，地方縣市政府之閒置土地及設施空間亦可獲得有效運用，藉由公、私部門合作，互蒙其利並可健全政府財政，鼓勵民間參與投資公共建設具有相當之必要性。 政府及民間於夥伴關係下，當促參案件之BOT、ROT、OT、BOO等投資契約遭遇履約爭議時，如何快速、有效、專業解決爭議，使促參投資計畫得繼續進行，不僅影響投資計畫之存續，更影響民間之投資意願。在現行法令及法院實務見解將BOT履約爭議定性為民事事件而非公法事件下，循仲裁程序解決投資契約之履約爭議，較採行訴訟程序更能有效及迅速解決履約爭議。 目前促參案件之主辦機關所擬定之投資契約關於履約爭議處理之條款，仍偏向特許公司須於履約爭議發生時，徵得主辦機關書面同意後方得提付仲裁，投資契約之仲裁條款形同虛設。本文以作者實際辦理之M水力發電廠BOT案之調整營運權利金履約案例為出發，對照實務上循訴訟程序進行之履約爭議案例，並對主辦機關拒絕採行仲裁方式之疑慮，提出解決建議，期能透過投資契約之仲裁條款修正，鼓勵主辦機關採行仲裁方式作為履約爭議處理機制。

The continuous investment in public infrastructure projects is an important indicator of national competitiveness and leads the development of domestic economy. However, it is increasingly difficult to raise funds for public infrastructures. Thus, introducing private funds to invest in public infrastructures may help to boost the domestic investment market and also effectively utilize the idle lands and facilities owned by the local counties and municipalities. The collaboration between the public and private sectors creates mutual benefits and improves public finance. Therefore, such partnership, that plays a crucial role in our economy, should be encouraged. The timeliness, effectiveness and professionalism involved upon solving disputes and promoting private participation for investment contracts such as BOT, Reconstruction-Operation-Transfer (ROT), Operation-Transfer (OT) and Build-Operation-Own (BOO) projects within the public-private partnerships, impacts not only the continuity of the contracts, but also the willingness of future private participations. In the light of the current laws and regulations as well as judicial opinions, BOT performance disputes are deemed civil rather than criminal; where adopting arbitration procedures to settle performance disputes of the investment contracts is much more effective and faster than pursuing litigation procedures. However, upon performance disputes, the current common practice for all promotional private participation project is to have the dispute resolution clause stipulates that the chartered corporation requires to obtain a written approval from the authority-in-charge before submitting for arbitration. Thus renders the substance of arbitration null and void in practice. This article is based on the author's actual handling of the dispute arising from adjusting the royalty fee based on operation of the M Hydroelectric Power Plant BOT project. The author proposed recommendations based on referring to other performance dispute cases that pursued litigation in practice and questioning the common practice of refusing arbitration by the authorities-in-charge. This article wishes to raise the attention and encourage the authorities-in-charge to adopt arbitration by amending the relevant clauses in the investment contracts.