- 期刊
都市計畫審查程序之起訴合法要件－以高雄高行110年度都訴字第2號及台北高行111年度都訴字第1號判決為例
Constituent Elements of Filing a Lawsuit in the Review Procedure of Urban Planning: Examples from Two Administrative Court Judgments
摘要
都市計畫審查程序因司法院釋字第742號解釋之主文諭知，致司法院修正行政訴訟法第237條之18至237條之31，並自2020年7月1日正式施行，開啟行政法院得審查法規（自治法規）合法性之先河，深具時代意義。都市計畫審查程序之起訴要件，包含原告與被告適格、聲請權限、訴訟標的、聲請期限及受理法院五大主要問題，本文爰依行政訴訟法第237條之18至同法第237條之20、第237條之28的順序，展開對於此五大問題法規範之內容分析，並提出下列修法建議：第一：原告適格似並未包含「行政機關」在內，應加以補充之。第二：被告以「核定」機關為適格被告，違反「顯名主義」及「權責相符原則」。第三：聲請權限仍以權益受損或可預見期限內受損為其要件，但因保護規範理論無法直接適用，且司法院釋字第774號解釋所帶來的不明確性將會影響實務之認定。第四：訴訟標的以原告聲請者為原則，例外得及於其他不可分之都市計畫，是否「不可分」？將會造成審理範圍之不明確性，且對未發布之「都市計畫」而可以施行「區段徵收」之標的，卻不得對之訴訟，並不合理，似有修正增添之必要。第五：聲請期限為自計畫發布後一年內，是否期限過短且無溯及爭訟可能效力，侵害人民之憲法訴訟權，有待斟酌。第六：受理法院為都市計畫所在地之高等行政法院，若都市計畫範圍橫跨數縣市或核定機關非在都市計畫所在地，不僅調查事證不便，亦可能會造成管轄權決定上之疑義。
並列摘要
Article 237-18 to Article 237-31 of the Administrative Litigation Act, which were amended by the Judicial Yuan in accordance with the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 742 and enforced officially on July 1st, 2020, are the primary statute granting the administrative courts to review regulation. There are five main topics arising from the requirements of procedure of reviewing urban planning, which are the qualification of defendant or plaintiff, standings, claims, peremptory periods, and jurisdiction. In a sequence of Article 237-18 to Article 237-31, this paper analyzes the aforementioned topics in respect to the articles and proposes following advice of amendment: First: "The qualification of plaintiff" seems not to include "government agency", which should be amended. Second: Using the approving authority as a qualified defendant violates "the named principal" and the "accrual parity principle". Third: The authority to claim is still based on damage to rights and interests or damage within a foreseeable period, but the theory of protective norms cannot be directly applied, and the ambiguity brought about by the Judicial Yuan's Interpretation No. 774 will cause the difficulties of determination on judicial practices. Fourth: The claim is primarily based on the plaintiff's claimant, and the exceptions apply to other indivisible urban planning. Is it "indivisible"? This will result in ambiguity in the scope of the trial, and for unpublished "urban planning" that can be subject to "zone expropriation", this is unreasonable that they cannot be litigated. There seems to be a need for amendment. Fifth: It remains questionable whether the one-year peremptory period is so short that people's fundamental right to litigate would be violated. Sixth: Since the jurisdiction belongs to the high administrative court where the urban plan is located, it would be confusing how to investigate the evidence and decide the jurisdiction if the range of urban plan cross counties, or the issuing apparatuses differ from the location of urban plan.