我國土地徵收條例修正草案之評析－以財產權保障觀點為中心

An Analysis and Commentary on the Draft of the Land Expropriation Act Amendments in Taiwan-From the Perspective of Property Rights Protection

陳明燦(Ming-Tsann Chen)

《臺北大學法學論叢》 85期 (2013/03) Pp. 1-42

摘要

我國徵收條例自施行以來，已逾10年，然由於最近社經條件變化頗鉅，兼以人民財產權意識逐漸抬頭，迫使政府不得不從「財產權保障」之觀點檢視現行徵收條例之內容，於是，本文乃以行政院最近送立法院之版本為分析對象，針對「徵收前置程序」、「徵收補償費額之決定」、「徵收補償費額爭議之解決」與「其他」等觀點評析修正條文。經過分析之後可歸納為以下幾點：一、關於徵收之前置程序：在「公、私利益意涵以及公益性與必要性評估」方面，主管機關應儘速建構一套公、私利益衡量機制，內政部100年01月18日台內地字第0990261119號函所示內容尚有不足，申言之，各公、私利益以及必要性之權重如何配賦，尚待解決；在「當事人參與機制」方面，需地人對於所有徵收案件須確實肩負公益性及必要評估報告書之義務，否則內政部徵審會無以審議，將使該制度淪為空談。二、關於徵收補償費額之決定：在「市價之意涵與估算」方面，建議應引入不動產估價師制度，蓋地價估計事屬專業判斷，又須以徵收計畫核准日之市價作為地價補償之基準日；在「毗鄰非公共設施保留地之意涵」方面，應以「受益範圍說」作為毗鄰範圍之界限，其所稱「非公共設施保留地」之內容應均不得包括「公保地」與「公共設施用地」，又，主管機關宜儘速針對公保地之性質研擬「土地徵收補償市價查估辦法」，以保障私權。三、關於徵收補償費額之爭議：在「土地徵收補償處分之作成與核定」方面，宜避免由同一機關為之；在「土地徵收補償費額爭議與救濟」方面，應從專業與客觀立場組成地價評議委員會，以發揮應有功能；在「土地徵收補償處分與行政裁量」方面，地政機關對於估價過程中所涉價事實之認定有無錯誤、法律構成要件之解釋以及估價方法是否正確等，其裁量權限宜適度予以限縮。最後，本文認為宜從「整體性」之觀點以檢視整部修正條文之內容，例如土地法第216條已定有「徵收接連地損失補償條款」，此部修正條文亦應有所回應，以符法制。

關鍵字

土地徵收條例修正草案 ； 財產權保障 ； 徵收前置程序 ； 徵收補償費額與爭議 ； 比較分析

並列摘要

The Land Expropriation Act has been implemented for more than a decade in Taiwan. Nevertheless, facing the rapid changing social and economic environment and the rising awareness of property rights, the government has to review the Act principally from the perspective of property rights protection. This paper reviews the draft of the Land Expropriation Act amendment recently proposed by the Executive Yuan to the Legislative Yuan. The arguments focus on: the preliminary procedure of land expropriation, the determination of compensations, the resolution of the disputes on compensations and other. The conclusions could be summarized as: Firstly, for the preliminary procedure for land expropriation: Based on the evaluation of public and private interests, the public welfare and necessity, the competent authority should establish a mechanism to evaluate the public and private interests as soon as possible. The Ministry of the Interior Letter No. 0990261119 on 18th January, 2011 was still inadequate. That is, the required weights to balance the public and private interests are still in need to be decided. As for the ”participation mechanism for related stakeholders”, the land use authority implementing the expropriation has the obligations to show the public interests sufficiency and to prepare the evaluation reports. Otherwise, the evaluation committee were unable to ensure the balance of public and private interest for the expropriate system. Secondly, for the determination of compensations: In order to determine the right market value, a real estate appraisers system should be considered. As for the consideration of the adjacent non-public facility reserved land, this paper suggests that it should be based on beneficial ranges to determine the boundary. The non-public facility reserved land should not include public facility reserved land and public facilities land. Moreover, the authority should draw up the regulations for evaluation of market price by land expropriation to meet the purpose of ”private property protection” of the Constitution Act. Thirdly, for the controversy on the compensation the determination and auditing of the amount of compensation from the same authority should be avoided. While a controversy in compensation exists during the expropriation, a professional and neutral land evaluation committee should be established. While the disputes were concerning the value of land or the interpretation of clauses, certain restriction to the land administration authority should be built. Finally, this paper argues that the review and amendment for the Act should integrate the associated concerns. For example, Section 216 of the Land Law has clauses regulated the compensation concerning to the adjacent land expropriation, the draft amendments should also have proper response.

並列關鍵字

Draft of the Land Expropriation Act amendments ； Property rights protection ； Preliminary procedure of land expropriation ； Compensations and disputes of land expropriation ； Comparative analysis

參考文獻

王璽仲()。

周信燉(2004)。由權力觀點審視台灣土地徵收制度之研究。國立政治大學地政系=Department of Land Economics, National Chengchi University=guo li zheng zhi da xue di zheng xi。

陳立夫()。

陳明燦(2010)。土地法專題研究。元照出版有限公司=Angle Publishing Co., Ltd.=yuan zhao chu ban you xian gong si。

葉百修(2011)。損失補償法。翰蘆圖書出版有限公司=Hanlu Book Publishing Ltd.=han lu tu shu chu ban you xian gong si。