憲法財產權保障的陰影－論徵收收回權的解釋困境

The Shawdow of Constitutional Protection of Property Rights: A Review on the Difficulties of Interpretation of the Redemption Right of Land Expropriation

張志偉(CHANG Chih-Wei)

《中正財經法學》 26期 (2023/01) Pp. 149-202

https://doi.org/10.53106/207873752023010026003

摘要

大法官歷年來多次強調，財產權應予保障，然於行政實務上仍難發揮撥亂反正之效。何故？之所以我國仍多有浮濫徵收之情況，位居徵收補償制度末端但絕非不重要的收回權制度不彰，應為原因之一。收回權原始之制度目的本在於，防止政府假公益之名，濫用土地徵收權，但卻因歷年來立法文本、行政實務、法院裁判（例），乃至於決議及大法官解釋嚴格以對，形成因「立法條文－行政函釋－最高行判例及決議－大法官解釋」極度限縮收回權，因而造成濫用徵收機制之可能。本文之作，即針對徵收收回權的解釋困境，提出不同的解釋可能。

關鍵字

徵收 ； 收回權 ； 財產權保障

並列摘要

The Grand Justices have reiterated that the right of property shall be guaranteed to the people. However, this has not been able to set things into the right way when government agencies are performing their duties. Why is this happening? One of the reasons why there are so many excessive land expropriation in Taiwan should be that the redemption right, which is the last but not least phase of the land expropriation compensation, has not been exercised properly. The original intent of the redemption right is to prevent any excessive land expropriation by any government agencies in the name of public interest. Nevertheless, over the years, the language of the statute, the administrative practice, court decisions, the resolutions of the judge-council and the interpretations of Grand Justice Counsel have been very strict on the application of the redemption right. This leads to the possibility of excessive land expropriation due to an extremely narrow interpretation of redemption right by the statute, the administrative orders, the decisions and resolutions of Supreme Administrative Court and the interpretations of Grand Justices Counsel. In light of the difficulties of interpreting the redemption right of land expropriation, this article aims to provide other possible interpretations.

並列關鍵字

Land Expropriation ； Redemption Right ； Protection of Property Right

參考文獻

徐世榮、張雅綿，土地正義：從土地改革到土地徵收，一段被掩蓋、一再上演的歷史，遠足文化，2016 年 9 月。HSU SHIH-JUNG & CHANG YA-MIEN, AGRARIAN JUSTICE: FROM LAND REFORM TO LAND EXPROPRIATION, A COVERED-UP, REPEATED HISTORY(Walkers Cultural Enterprise Ltd., 2016).

葉百修，土地徵收法，三民書局，2016 年 8 月。YEH PAI-HSIU, LAND EXPROPRIATION LAW (San Min Book Co.,Ltd., 2016).

吳信華，「法院裁判」作為大法官違憲審查的客體，收錄於吳信華（編），「憲法訴訟專題研究（一）－訴訟類型」，2009 年 10 月，第 3-46 頁。WU Hsin-Hua, "Court Judgment" as the Object of Constitutional Review by the Grand Justices Council, in SEMINAR IN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT PROCEDURE ACT 3-46 (WU Hsin-Hua, 2009).

李惠宗，財產權保護與土地徵收補償，收錄於台灣行政法學會（主編），「資訊法制、土地規劃與損失補償之新趨勢」，2010 年 9 月，第 23-54 頁。LI Hui-Tsung, Protection of Property Rights and Compensation for Land Expropriation, in NEW TRENDS OF INFORMATION LEGAL SYSTEM, LAND PLANNING AND COMPENSATION 23-54 (Taiwan Administrative Law Association ed., Angle Publishing Co., Ltd., 2010).

張志偉，適宜居住權、財產權保障與衡量誡命－評釋字第 709 號解釋，收錄於李模務實法學基金會（編），「判解研究彙編（十七、十八）」，2014 年 12 月，第 137-165 頁。CHANG Chih-Wei, Right to Adequate Housing, Right to Protection of Property Rights and requirement of consideration - coment on J.Y. Interpretation No.749, in LAW REPORT 17&18 137-165 (Li Mo & Associates Attorneys-at-Law, 2014).