犧牲補償原則與補償法定原則︰德國法與我國法之比較

當人民面對國家對其財產權所為之干預而達特別犧牲之程度時，得否依據憲法財產權規定向國家請求損失補償？抑或僅能依賴立法者制定補償條文後始得請求？爭議不斷。此涉及︰犧牲補償原則的內涵、補償法定原則是否可能以及法律牴觸相關原理原則之後果。　　德國基本法第14條的財產權釋義學，發展出兩種犧牲補償原則的路徑，分別是第3項的財產權之徵收，以及第1項第2句的財產權內容與限制。依據第3項規定，國家徵收人民財產權時，應在徵收法律中一併制定公正的補償規定，否則徵收法律違憲。依據第1項第2句規定，立法者應始終確保財產權內容與限制規定原則上合憲，僅在例外情況下，得以衡平措施避免規範牴觸平等原則或比例原則。該國基本法財產權釋義學採取補償法定原則（包含衡平給付法定原則），因此，倘若欠缺法律規定，行政機關或法院不得為補償（或衡平給付）之決定與裁判。補償與否以及方式，乃立法者之權限與義務。倘立法者制定「救援條款」，則未履行這項義務，應屬違憲之立法。進一步言，當法院面對一欠缺補償條文之徵收法律，或是針對一有衡平義務、但欠缺衡平規定的財產權內容限制規定，其不得依據基本權規定，賦予人民在法律上所欠缺的補償請求權，毋寧應依據基本法第100條規定裁定停止訴訟程序，將案件提交給聯邦憲法法院，聲請作出規範違憲之裁判。如此，便足以維護人民憲法上之財產權。　　於我國法上，犧牲補償原則迭經釋憲實務所肯認，惟其論證與法理基礎則相對薄弱。犧牲補償原則之理論基礎，得為平等原則、比例原則與結果取向論證。補償，屬於國家犧牲人民財產權之合憲性要件，因而不是效果。補償與犧牲（即干預）應置於法治國原則下的干預行政中一併觀察，而不應認為補償屬給付行政。補償事項，依據憲法第23條規定，屬於法律保留原則之適用範圍，即立法者應對於補償之要件、方式與範圍，自行決定。除有事實上不能或基於事務領域之特別考量外，立法者不得制定「…特別犧牲，應予以補償。」這樣的概括補償規定，授權行政機關或法院，代為作成補償決定。倘法院審理案件時認為所適用之法律對於人民財產權構成犧牲，但系爭法律欠缺補償條文時，法院應依據憲法訴訟法第55條規定，裁定停止訴訟程序向憲法法庭聲請作成違憲宣告之判決。一般法院不應逕為補償之裁判。人民之憲法上財產權，得據此獲得充分保障。

關鍵字

補償法定原則；犧牲補償原則；特別犧牲；損失補償；無法律無補償；衡平給付

並列摘要

When people face state interventions in their property rights that reach the level of special sacrifice, can they seek compensation from the state based on constitutional property rights provisions? Or they could only make such claims after the legislature has established compensation provisions? This issue is contentious. It involves the principle of sacrifice compensation, the possibility of principle of “No compensation without statute”, and the consequences of conflicts with relevant legal principles. In the interpretation of Article 14 of the Basic Law of Germany, two paths of the principle of sacrifice compensation have developed: the expropriation provision in paragraph 3 and the content and limitation of property in sentence 2 of paragraph 1. According to paragraph 3, when the state expropriates property, it must establish just compensation provisions within the expropriation law; otherwise, the expropriation law is unconstitutional. According to sentence 2 of paragraph 1, the legislature must always ensure that the content and limitation of property provisions are constitutionally compliant, except in exceptional cases where balancing measures may be used to avoid conflicts with the principles of equality or proportionality. The interpretation of property rights in the Basic Law of Germany adopts the principle of “No compensation without statute” (including balancing measures). Therefore, in the absence of legal provisions, administrative agencies or courts cannot make decisions or rulings on compensation (or balancing measures). The authority and obligation to determine compensation and its method lie with the legislature. If the legislature enacts a "rescue clause" but fails to fulfill this obligation, such legislation is unconstitutional. Furthermore, when a court encounters an expropriation law lacking compensation provisions or a property limitation regulation that sacrifice property rights, it cannot grant a compensation claim based on fundamental rights. Instead, the court should suspend the proceedings according to Article 100 of the Basic Law and submit the case to the Federal Constitutional Court, requesting a ruling on the unconstitutionality of the regulation. This approach sufficiently protects citizens' constitutional property rights. In our legal system, the principle of “No compensation without statute” has been repeatedly affirmed by constitutional jurisprudence, but its arguments and legal basis are relatively weak. The theoretical foundation of the sacrifice compensation principle can be the principles of equality, proportionality, and result-oriented arguments. Compensation is a constitutional requirement for the legitimacy of state sacrifice of property rights, and thus not an outcome. Compensation and sacrifice (i.e., intervention) should be considered together under Rechtsstaat, and compensation should not be viewed as administrative benefits. According to Article 23 of the Constitution, compensation measures fall within the scope of the principle of legal reservation, meaning that the legislature should independently decide on the conditions, methods, and scope of compensation. Except for practical impossibilities or special considerations of specific fields, the legislature should not enact general compensation provisions like "...special sacrifices should be compensated," authorizing administrative agencies or courts to make compensation decisions. If a court finds that the applicable law sacrifices property rights but lacks compensation provisions, it should suspend the proceedings according to Article 55 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act and lodge a petition with the Constitutional Court for a judgment declaring the impugned applicable law unconstitutional. General courts should not directly adjudicate compensation claims. In this way, citizens' constitutional property rights can be fully protected.