環評爭訟案件行政救濟途徑之探討－以中科三期為例

Abstract

我國環境影響評估制度係參酌美國環境影響評估制度而建構；與美國制度不同之處，除我國係由環保主管機關主導環評審查程序外，亦賦予環評審查委員會「否決權」，以環評審查結論來決定開發行為可否進行，作為制衡目的事業主管機關之手段。中科三期案係近年來著名的環評爭訟案件，其爭議涉及環境影響評估法第14條之解釋、本案訴訟與暫時權利保護制度之類型，以及公民訴訟等面向。 本文整理中科三期案實務相關判決與裁定後，認為中科三期環評爭訟案之核心問題，係涉及環境影響評估法第14條第1項開發行為許可無效規定之解釋，於釐清後，才能進一步就本案訴訟與暫時權利保護制度之擇取進行討論。本文認為，自始未經環境影響評估和環評審查結論嗣後遭撤銷之狀況，均屬未完成環境影響評估審查之情形，開發行為許可之效力均為無效；環評審查結論程序與開發行為許可程序雖形成多階段行政程序，然環評審查結論與開發行為許可間之效力，仍須視環評法第14條第1項之規定而認定；基於區域計畫法所核發之開發許可並非該條規範之範疇，而中科管理局針對廠商設廠行為所核發之建築許可，因具有開發行為許可性質，而有該條規定之適用。 中科三期環評爭訟案主要以撤銷訴訟為主，原告亦有以公民訴訟提起本案訴訟。我國公民訴訟制度亦參考美國潔淨空氣法及潔淨水法之公民訴訟條款而設計；不同於美國環評法規無公民訴訟條款之規定，我國受害人民與公益團體可依環評法中公民訴訟條款之規定，在主管機關於書面告知送達日起60天內仍未依法執行時，直接向行政法院提起訴訟。在觀察美國經典環境案件中聯邦最高法院之見解，以及和我國實務見解之比較下，本文認為，美國法院承認原告可基於其使用環境利益受到實際侵害而提起訴訟，而我國法院在受害人民之認定，應適度寬認法律上利害關係之權利，承認環境利益為環境影響評估法所保護之權利；在公益團體部分，基於專業性與能力之考量，以及避免投機型訴訟干擾公民訴訟之進行、影響行政效率、浪費司法資源，本文認為應限制由環境團體提起公民訴訟係為合理。 在重構中科三期案之本案訴訟部分，就環評審查結論、免實施環評許可以及內政部開發許可，原告應提起撤銷訴訟；就國科會所核發之開發行為許可，原告應提起確認行政處分無效訴訟；建築許可係中科管理局就廠商之設廠行為所核發，具有開發行為許可之性質，原告亦應提起確認行政處分無效訴訟。針對上開本案訴訟，在暫時權利保護制度部分，應採停止執行程序；然而，有鑑於我國實務就准許停止執行聲請之案件，僅就行政處分之執行裁定停止，並未就行政處分於效力停止時，為維持現狀而為一定之處置，對於中科三期七星農場基地內「停工不停產」之問題，原告可聲請定暫時狀態處分，以確保其權利能獲得有效保障。 最後，法院在審理停止執行或假處分之聲請，均可採同一之實體審查標準進行認定。本文認為，採取附隨實體法審查模式，法院可正確地在聲請人和相對人間分配風險，並減少法院於暫時權利保護之裁定可能發生的錯誤風險，實踐暫時止爭之功能和權利有效保護之目標。中科三期案因法院未能即時就暫時權利保護之聲請作出裁決，而使案件爭議不斷擴大、更趨複雜；因此，最重要的是法院應即時地、效率地針對暫時權利保護之聲請作出裁定，以有效保障聲請人之權利。

The design of Taiwan’s environmental impact assessment (the “EIA”) was modeled from the National Environmental Policy Act (the “NEPA”) of the United States. However, significantly different from the legal design of the EIA of the United States, Taiwan’s review committee (the “EIA Committee”) established by the environmental protection agencies is in charge of EIA, and EIA committee has veto power to decide whether the development activity, supported by the competent agency, can be done. The controversy surrounding the third-stage construction of the Central Taiwan Science Park (“CTSP”), which is a famous EIA case, involves article 14 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (the “EIA Act”), the types of administrative litigation, and the standing of citizen suit. First, with an overview of all the court decisions of CTSP, this thesis finds out that Paragraph 1, Article 14 of the EIA Act is the most important issue, the interpretation of which affects the types of lawsuit which local residents who are influenced by the development activity may raise as the plaintiff, as well as the choice of temporary right protection mechanism in the EIA cases. This thesis argues that in cases where the review of an EIA procedure is not completed, or that a conclusion of a complete review is revoked afterwards, the development activity permission issued by the competent authority is invalid. Second, although the EIA procedure and development permission procedure led by the competent authority together form an instance of “multi-stage administrative disposition”, the validity of the development permission still depends on whether the granting of permission conform to the EIA regulation. Except the building permit issued by the competent industry authority and can be deemed as a kind of the development permission, other kind of building permit and permission issued under the Regional Plan Act are not regulated by EIA regulations. In addition to the revocation suit in the case of the third-stage CTSP, plaintiffs also file a citizen suit. Taiwan’s citizen suit provision of the EIA Act was also modeled from the provision of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act of the United States. Compared with the citizen suit provision which not stipulated in the NEPA of the United States, the victims or public interest groups in Taiwan can file a citizen suit according to the EIA Act when the competent authorities have failed to act in accordance with the law within sixty days after receipt of a written notification from the victims or public interest groups. Using a comparison between the classic environmental cases of the United States’ Supreme courts and the decisions of Taiwan’s Administrative Courts, this thesis argues that when the court applies the Theory of Protective Norms to review the standing of the victims, it should recognize environmental interests as the right protected by the EIA codes. Considering the specialization and capability of the public interest groups and the interests of preventing opportunistic litigation, the court should narrow the scope of the standing to the extent that only environmental groups have the standing to bring citizen suit. Back to the cases of the third-stage CTSP, the plaintiff should file a suit to revoke the conclusion of the EIA review, the permission of exemption from EIA review, and the permission issued under the Regional Plan Act, as well as file a suit to declare that the administrative act of the issuance of the development permission by National Science Council is void. Because the building permit issued by CTSP Administration is also a development permission for the construction of a factory, the plaintiff should file actions to declare that an administrative act is void, too. The plaintiff should also file a motion for cessation of the compulsory execution during the merits. In case of emergency situations, such as violations by the proposed agency or the competent authority, the plaintiff can file a motion to obtain an injunction maintaining a temporary status quo with regard to the legal relation in dispute. Lastly, the court can use the same review standards both in cases facing motion for cessation of the compulsory execution, and in cases facing motion for the provisional disposition. This thesis suggests that a preliminary review on the merit can help the court allocate risk correctly, minimize the error of the ruling, and cease controversy before the suit is final. The most important point is that the court should make the ruling timely and effectively to protect the plaintiff’s rights, the absence of a ruling of such kind is the reason why the controversy of the third-stage CTSP becomes more complicated.