污染者之“本尊”或“分身”？誰應付費？－論適用“揭穿公司面紗原則”於母公司環保法律責任之認定

Who Should Be the Payer, the Ego or Alter Ego of the Polluter?-Analysis of the Applicability of the Principle of "Piercing the Corporate Veil" on Environmental Liabilities of the Parent Company

蔡瑄庭(Shen-Ting Tsai)

《臺北大學法學論叢》 73期 (2010/03) Pp. 83-139

https://doi.org/10.6774/TULR.201003.0083

摘要

與子公司之資本與重要幹部相關之母公司，是否以及於何情況下應就子公司之環保責任負責？依據傳統「有限責任原則」，股東與公司債務隔離，母公司與子公司責任隔離，子公司責任受法律推定爲其公司本身決策之後果，因此由子公司自負其責；此原則之目的在於確保股東與母公司免受商業失敗風險波及，以鼓勵投資及社會經濟發展。公司宣稱，不尊重有限責任原則將犧牲投資人利益，使公司暴露於過多的投資風險下，不利公司發展。然而近年來層出不窮之環保案例，公司運用主體分離機制巧妙逃避毒物侵權賠償責任或政府龐大土污整治費用之追索，已暴露有限責任之公司不只可能對大眾健康產生危害，更對國庫造成巨大之負擔，全體國民成爲公司污染之終極負責人，顯示有限責任原則不只在環境政策上不正確，經濟上亦不正確。美國普通法採用之「揭穿公司面紗原則」，突破公司責任隔離之推定，建立特定判斷要件，強調污染者付費，擴大污染者之認定，而及於「有權決策」或「實際決策」之子公司分身(alter ego)，已爲多項環境判決所適用之原則。質言之，倘若母公司對於子公司具一定程度之控制能力，法院可能揭穿公司面紗並且認定母子公司均須負責。從而於美國環境侵權訴訟中，受害者得向母公司求償，增加受償機會。而行政機關亦得向母公司請求分攤子公司污染之整治費用，實現法規目的。我國法無明文引進揭開公司面紗原則，實務上亦傾向保留，然本文認爲於毒物侵權與毒物棄置管制等環保領域，關於母公司責任之認定，應擴大適用「揭開公司面紗原則」。本文無意挑戰公司法基礎論述或進行公司法架構革新，僅就環保領域中之法人責任，主張超越有限責任之限制，而採取較爲符合公益之認定。本文之基本假設爲，吾人於權衡公司與環保法規之規範利益時，若事涉環境保護、人民健康與安全之時，公司組織之形式應隸屬於公共福祉之較大利益之下。

關鍵字

有限責任原則 ； 揭穿公司面紗原則 ； 母公司 ； 毒物侵權訴訟 ； 毒物棄置

並列摘要

Whether and under what conditions should a parent company, which is related to its subsidiary in both equity capital and corporate management, be liable for the environmental liabilities of its subsidiary? According to the principle of limited liability, the liabilities of the company should be separated from those of its shareholders. The purpose of this principle is to safeguard the shareholders and the parent company from the risk of business failure, so as to encourage investment and economic development. It is declared by the company that, without due respect to the principle of the limited liabilities will expose the company to overburdened investment risks, and it will adversely impact the development of the company. However, on the various environmental disputes arisen in the latest years, the company technically made use of the limited liabilities principle and avoided the responsibilities to cleanup the polluted site or the compensation to damages caused from toxic torts. The result is huge financial burden of the government, which will be ultimately borne by all taxpayers. As such, US court practically adopts the principle of ”piercing the corporate veils” in law of equity to overrule the presumption under the principle of limited liabilities, and established the criteria on the applications. The rationale is to make the polluter the payer, and also broaden the scope of polluter to the ones who have the authorities to decide or actual participate in the pollution as alter ego of the subsidiary. The principles are adopted in a number of environmental judgments. In other words, if the parent company controls the subsidiary to certain extent, the court may pierce the corporate veils and verdict that the parent company should be liable for the subsidiary's misconducts. To the victims, it will provide them with an additional chance to be compensated. To the government authorities, it will have the basis to ask the parent company responsible for the related costs and expenses. The Taiwan law did not explicitly adopts the principle of piercing the corporate veils, and the application in real cases is also very limited. Nevertheless, the Article is of the view that, on the environmental fields on toxic torts and disposal of hazardous substances, the application of ”piercing the corporate veils” should be broadened when determines the liabilities of the parent company. The intent of this Article is not to challenge the basic theory of the Company Law or to revolute the structure thereof. The only purpose is to determine the liabilities of the parent company in a way more favorable to the public welfare by overriding the principle of limited liabilities. The underlying assumption of this Article is that, when we are balancing the pros and cons of the company law principles and the environmental law welfares, if the subject matters will cause impact on environmental protection, human health or public safety, the company law principles will always be subordinate to the public welfare.

並列關鍵字

the principle of limited liability ； the principle of piercing the corporate veils ； parent Company ； toxic torts ； disposal of hazardous substances

參考文獻

劉公偉(2001)。揭穿公司面紗原則之經濟分析。國立臺灣大學法學論叢。30(5)

(1970)。仙台地判昭和45年3月26日判例。判例時報。588

Abraham, Kenneth S.(1988).Environmental Liability and the limits of Insurance.COLUM. L. REV..88,942942.

Aronovsky, Ronald G.,Fuller, Lynn D.(1990).Liability of Parent Corporations for Hazardous Substance Releases Under CERCLA.U.S.F. L. REV..24,421,460-469.

Basket, David S.(1996).Piercing the Corporate Veil for Environmental Torts in the United States and the European Union: the Case for the Proposed Civil Liability Directive.BC INT'L & COMP. L. REV..19,323323.