都市計畫審查程序之建構—從司法院釋字第742號出發

Abstract

定期通盤檢討變更都市計畫之爭議，歷經將近四十年，相關爭議似是因司法院釋字第742號解釋（下稱「本號釋字」）而塵埃落定，然因司法院大法官於本號釋字課予立法者義務建立都市計畫審查程序，此又為我國行政法學說、實務帶來新的難題，本文由本號釋字出發，依循其討論脈絡，討論定性難題、實務困境，至終，欲建構一個符合我國行政訴訟體系之都市計畫審查程序。 定期通盤檢討變更都市計畫之定性爭議，於本號釋字作成後，學說上可分為：法規命令說、一般處分說、新的行政行為說。本文予以分析，以為此定性難題，實係因都市計畫本身多樣性、繁複性、手段綜合性以及內容可變性，以及法規命令以及一般處分其事件抽象分界難以劃分之緣故，本文建議立法者可同時參考德國比較立法例，於都市計畫法將都市計畫之性質為明確之規範。承接定性難題而論者為都市計畫救濟之爭議，本文發現本號釋字似是未檢視我國行政訴訟制度所有可能救濟途徑，從而，本文觀察我國行政法院實務都市計畫之爭訟案件，並分類討論此類案件適用各種訴訟類型之可行性：確認訴訟、預防性不作為訴訟。而以司法院釋字第742號為分水嶺，觀察我國實務，可發現其態度之轉變。 延續本號釋字之討論，立於上述兩大行政法困境，大法官以財產權、訴訟權保護不足為由，課予立法者義務，建構都市計畫行政救濟制度。然都市計畫審查程序對我國來說實屬陌生，應如何設計、操作，方符合我國行政訴訟脈絡，本文以爭點式之方式，討論都市計畫審查程序中較有爭議、較具重要性者：制度定性、訴訟類型、審查標的、當事人認定（原告、被告、參加人）、法院司法審查之操作。比較德國法、法國法、我國現行有關制度實行之方式，予以分析探討。 一、首先，就都市計畫審查程序之制度定性者，因都市計畫審查程序具有客觀訴訟之性質，與我國行政訴訟體系偏向主觀公權利保護體系實有不同，可肯認我國都市計畫審查程序草案，參考德國行政法院法第47條，以有限之方式承認規範審查程序，並系爭審查程序具有主客觀雙重性質。 二、關於訴訟類型之討論，本文擬行政行為之瑕疵認定，以決定其訴訟類型，以最具爭議之定期通盤檢討變更都市計畫之細部計畫為例，法規命令之瑕疵認定，我國採行瑕疵無效主義，從而都市計畫審查程序之訴訟類型，亦應傾向確認無效訴訟之性質。 三、審查標的之範圍，與利害關係人之認定範圍、訴訟經濟，息息相關。從而本文進一步討論審查標的是否可分，本文參考德國行政法院法第47條建設計畫是否可分之認定，「建設計畫其餘部分是否因一部無效部分而無法存立，則該一部無效係不可能存在者」。 四、當事人之認定，本文分為原告、被告、參加人予以分別討論，提出相關認定判準以及保障相關利害關係人權益之程序。如原告之部分，參考德國實務多依循與訴訟權能判斷相同之保護規範理論，即視權衡之規定，德國建設法第1條第7項於立法過程中是否有將該私人之利益納入考量，而為判定。被告機關之認定，則以主要計畫、細部計畫作為區分標準，主要計畫應以核定機關，即內政部作為被告機關。而細部計畫，以地方自治團體仍為被告機關。參加人制度，本文亦 參考德國行政法院法第47條第2項中法規審查程序之參加人規範，德國以賦予法院裁量權之方式，由法院權衡原告與參加人間之利益，且以公告之方式，確保對建設計畫利害關係人之告知權。 五、對於都市計畫審查程序之司法審查，因都市計畫本身對區域為現在以及未來之規劃，具有高度預測性、高度價值判斷以及程序上不可重複之特質，立法者以目的綱領式規範給予行政機關計畫形成自由，司法應予尊重，對於都市計畫司法審查之利益衡量，除我國現行實務八大判斷餘地例外，亦參考前述德國聯邦行政法院之利益衡量瑕疵判準，其更為細緻。盼本文所討論之建議判準，能使行政實務於計畫形成自由與司法監督行政之權力分立角色間，取得平衡。 對於都市計畫審查程序，此對我國行政訴訟體系而言，較為陌生之具有客觀訴訟色彩之新制度，盼藉由本文所提出之判準，使相關實務有得以參考之操作方式。

After nearly forty years, the disputes over urban plan modification based on periodic comprehensive review seem to be settled due to Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 742 (hereinafter referred to as 'the interpretation '). However, the Justice of the Constitutional Court obligated the legislators an obligation to amend an urban planning review procedure in the interpretation, which brings in new problems to doctrines of law and practice of administrative law in Taiwan. This article starts from the interpretation and follows the discussion of the interpretation: characterization problems, practical dilemmas, and ultimately, to construct an urban planning review procedure which is consistent with the administrative litigation system in Taiwan. After the interpretation, the characterization problems of urban plan modification based on periodic comprehensive review can be divided into three theories in the doctrine: administrative regulation, general disposition and new administrative behavior. This article points out that all these problems are the result of the diversity, complexity, comprehensiveness and content variability of the urban plan itself, not to mention the boundary between administrative regulations and general disposition is difficult to be divided. To solve this problem, this article suggests that our legislators could refer to the German legislation and clarifies the characterization of urban plan in urban planning law. The next question is: without examining all possible remedies for urban plan dispute in Taiwan, the interpretation claimed that there wasn't enough protection for the person affected by urban plan. Therefore, this article observes the litigation cases of the urban planning in Taiwan, discussing the possible administrative appeal in such cases. By taking the interpretation as a watershed, we can find a change in the attitude of administrative court. Based on the two administrative law dilemmas above, the legislators are obliged by the Justice of the Constitutional Court to amend an urban planning review procedure. However, the urban planning review procedure is unfamiliar to the administrative litigation system in Taiwan. How to construct and apply it is a question. This article discusses the controversial and important issues in the urban planning review procedure in a dispute-based manner: the nature of the review procedure, the type of litigation, the subject of the review procedure, the parties (the plaintiff, the defendant, the participant), and the judicial review of the court. This article analyzes these issues by comparing to German law, French law, and the current implementation of administrative courts in Taiwan. The issues are discussed below: Firstly, the characterization of the urban planning review procedure, which originally has the nature of objective litigation, is different from the administrative litigation system in Taiwan, which is characterized of protecting subjective rights. Thus, this article agrees with the draft of urban planning review procedure, with reference to Article 47 of the German Administrative Court Act, recognizing the normative review procedure in a limited manner and the review procedure with both subjective and objective nature. Secondly, regarding the discussion of the type of litigation, this article intends to determine the type of litigation by the defective type of administrative action. Take the detail plan of urban plan modification based on periodic comprehensive review as an example, according to the interpretation, its characterization is administrative regulation, and the defective type of administrative regulation is invalidism. Thus, the type of litigation in the urban planning review procedure should be administrative actions for declaration of invalid. Third, the scope of the subject in the review is closely related to the scope of identification of the interested parties and the litigation economy. Therefore, this article discusses whether the subject in the review can be divided. This article refers to the Standard of Article 47 of the German Administrative Court Law is: 'Whether the rest of the urban plan won't be exit due to the invalid part.' Fourth, for the determination of the parties, this article discusses plaintiffs, defendants, and participants separately. Take plaintiff for an example, the practice in German uses the same standard as the standing of administrative actions for revocation: The Doctrine of the Protective Scope of the Norm, and whether the interests of the private sector are considered in the first paragraph of Article 7 of the German Construction Law. As for the defendant, this article takes the master plan and the detail plan as the distinguishing criteria. In the case of master plan, we should take the approved authority, that is, the Ministry of the Interior as the defendant. And for detail plan, the local self-governing body will be the defendant. Regarding the discussion of Participant, this article also refers to the participant's norms in Article 47, paragraph 2 of the German Administrative Court Act, which gives the court the power of discretion to balance the interests between plaintiffs and the participants. Fifth, speaking of judicial review of the urban planning review procedure, since the region's current and future planning shares the characteristics of highly predictive, high-value judgment and procedurally non-repeatable characteristics, the legislators use the target programmatic way for administrative agency to have the freedom of forming plan. With this aspect, the court should respect the discretion of administrative agency. For the urban planning review procedure, which is a really new and unfamiliar procedure in Taiwan. I hope that through the discussions in this article, the administrative courts can have a reference for applying the urban planning review procedure.