論土地所有人多重環保義務之補償－以美國法規徵收相關判決分析為核心

A Study on the Compensation to Landowners for Multiple Environmental Obligations-Focus on the Analysis of U.S. Precedents Regarding Regulatory Takings

蔡瑄庭(Shen-Ting Tsai)

《財產法暨經濟法》 14期 (2008/06) Pp. 35-84

摘要

造成人民財產權侵害之行政行爲，其類型多樣，可能來自於直接剝奪所有權或對財產權之行使作普遍限制之法律規定，或因行政處分及行政上之事實行爲而造成徵收之效果者。我國大法官會議解釋與學界通說，認爲土地徵收係政府基於公益，合法侵害人民基本權利，而填補其損失，屬「行政補償」之類型，應受「損失補償法定原則」之拘束。
然而以污染控制或水土資源保育之目標所制定之環境管制手段，往往加諸土地所有人使用、收益或開發上之限制，並造成所有權人經濟上損失或所有權權能之剝奪。同一土地所有人基於不同環境保護法規，所承受之多量管制義務，其受限制之權能或使用收益之範圍係屬多重，經濟上之損失亦加重，如何計算多重損害之填補範圍，攸關人民權益之具體保障，受「損失補償法定原則」之拘束，多重環保義務之土地所有人可能欠缺請求權基礎，而無法受到相當之補償。
美國法院及學界針對徵收得受補償之類型化建立，論辯多年，並且以財產權之保障爲核心價值，而嘗試建立統一之判斷標準，不乏具參考價值之見解，特別針對多重環保義務之土地所有人補償認定上，採取經濟影響之「量之計算標準」考量土地所有人多重義務之加重損害結果，而予以補償，值得參考。因此本文就台灣行政損失補償法體系與美國警察權行使及徵收補償相關之聯邦法院判決與成例，探討土地所有人對於無補償規定，但限制財產權行使之多項環境管制手段，向政府請求徵收補償，其法理爲何，以及如何運用美國判決經驗，實現相關個案之真實正義。

關鍵字

徵收補償 ； 財產權侵害 ； 法規徵收 ； 環境管制手段

並列摘要

There are various types of administrative actions that may infringe the property rights of citizens: some of them are originated from the laws directly depriving the ownership rights of citizens or those universally restricting the property rights of citizens, and some of them derive from administrative decisions or de facto administrative actions resulting regulatory taking of properties. Both the prevailing view from scholars and the judicial interpretation by Grand Judges support the rationale that regulatory taking of land shall be regarded as a legitimate infringement of citizens' basic rights due to public welfare consideration, and any compensation thereof shall be administrative compensations that must be expressly provided in the statute law.
Nevertheless, the environmental command-and-control measures for pollution control or soil/water source maintenance will inevitably impose restrictions on the landowner's rights to use, to benefit from, and/or to develop the land. Further, such measures will cause economic loss and impose ownership restriction to the landowners. Because of various environmental laws and regulations, the same landowner is obliged to follow multiple restrictions on the scope of use, and his/her right to economically benefit from the land will also be restricted in a number of ways. The method for calculating the compensation scope to multiple losses will substantially influence people's right, and therefore must follow the principle that all compensations must be provided in statute law. Therefore, the landowner's losses due to multiple environmental obligations will not be compensated unless there is a solid ground provided in the statute law.
The efforts of the US courts and scholars to establish the typology of regulatory takings have continued for years, the basic rationale of which is to protect constitutional rights and set up a feasible compensation standard. The US experience may serve as our guidance, especially the quantified calculation standard for compensation based on the accumulative economic impact to landowners. Therefore, this Article will explore the applicability of the precedents rendered in US Federal courts and the US experience on police authorization to the compensation scheme of Taiwan, so that the rationale for the citizens to claim compensation from the government for the losses caused by environmental law restrictions imposed on their property rights can be established (assuming the compensation measure is not explicitly provided in the statute law).

並列關鍵字

administrative compensation ； property right infringement ； regulatory takings ； environmental command-and-control measures