由司法及行政途徑督促公部門提供無障礙服務之研究

Abstract

我國憲法第10條第7項無障礙環境建構條款，作為國家目標規定，明文揭櫫國家機關包括行政、立法及司法機關均負有遵守義務。而我國身心障礙權益之立法政策，歷經「醫療模式」與「慈善模式」的發展，隨著社會、經濟、政治環境更迭變遷以及身心障礙者權利公約之施行，逐步匯納「社會模式」及「人權模式」之理念。其中，無障礙乃身心障礙者行使一切基本權利之前提。 當公部門未履行符合身心障礙者權益保障法及相關授權命令無障礙標準要求之作為義務時，身心障礙者得否請求公部門提供無障礙服務？由於司法訴訟通常是權利救濟之首選方式，本文首先探討司法管道得否作為請求公部門提供無障礙服務之手段。惟我國實務判決多以身心障礙者欠缺明確之請求權基礎駁回其訴訟，職是，本文將藉由法學解釋方法，分析我國是否得從〈身心障礙者權利公約〉推導出身心障礙者訴訟權能。經研究後，由於法院實務普遍對於公約內容不夠熟悉，且公約本身具有一定抽象性，僅依賴解釋論仍有其侷限。因此，在立法層面，本文以美國身心障礙者法（ADA）作為比較法基礎，進一步提出完善我國司法救濟途徑之初步立法建議。 儘管司法救濟乃身心障礙者維護權利之重要管道之一，但仍存在「權利保護時點過晚」與「法院需考量行政機關財政資源分配」等限制。鑒於此困境，本文進一步探討「行政途徑」作為替代方案，強調應讓身心障礙者參與事前無障礙規劃程序，促使公部門於決策初期即納入身心障礙者意見，從而減少後續紛爭與執行阻力。我國雖已建立多項身心障礙者參與程序之正式機制，然而，關於「何人得代表身心障礙者？」、「應如何參與程序？」、「得參與哪些程序階段？」等問題，仍須進一步檢討，確保吻合身心障礙者權利公約「有意義參與」之核心精神，並建立完備之程序。

Article 10, Paragraph 7 of the Constitution of Taiwan explicitly establishes the construction of an accessible environment as a national goal, thereby imposing corresponding obligations on administrative, legislative, and judicial bodies. Taiwan’s legislative policies concerning the rights of persons with disabilities have evolved from the "medical model" and "charity model" to incorporate the "social model" and "human rights model" following shifts in social, economic, and political landscapes, as well as the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Notably, accessibility is a fundamental prerequisite for persons with disabilities to exercise their basic rights.

When public authorities fail to fulfill their obligations under the People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act and relevant administrative regulations regarding accessibility, can persons with disabilities demand accessible services from the government? Given that judicial remedies are typically the primary recourse for asserting rights, this paper first examines whether the judiciary serves as a viable channel for enforcing accessibility obligations against public authorities. However, judicial rulings in Taiwan frequently dismiss such claims due to the alleged lack of a clear legal basis for persons with disabilities to request governmental action. Therefore, this paper explores, through legal interpretation, whether the CRPD can provide a foundation for recognizing the litigation rights of persons with disabilities. The study finds that the judiciary’s limited familiarity with the CRPD, coupled with the abstract nature of the convention itself, poses significant challenges to deriving legal claims solely through interpretation. Consequently, at the legislative level, this paper draws upon the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as a comparative framework and proposes legislative recommendations to enhance Taiwan’s judicial remedies for accessibility rights.

Although judicial remedies are an essential means for persons with disabilities to assert their rights, they are constrained by factors such as the delayed timing of judicial protection and the courts' consideration of administrative budget allocations. Given these limitations, this paper further explores administrative avenues as an alternative approach, advocating for the involvement of persons with disabilities in the early stages of accessibility planning. By mandating public authorities to incorporate the perspectives of persons with disabilities during the decision-making process, this approach seeks to preempt disputes and reduce barriers to implementation. While Taiwan has established several formal mechanisms for procedural participation by persons with disabilities, questions remain regarding who qualifies as a representative, how participation should be conducted, and at which procedural stages participation should occur. These issues warrant further examination to ensure alignment with the CRPD’s principle of "meaningful participation" and to establish a more rational and comprehensive procedural framework.