論人民對區段徵收之權利救濟

我國「區段徵收」作為一種舉世少有之制度，現仍在國內經頻繁地運用，從而，探討其合憲性上或行政救濟上之問題，便十分帶有本土化之色彩。　　由區段徵收之特性，如強制性、特別犧牲之存在及財產權存續性保障被破壞等理由，本文認其應為一種特殊類型之土地徵收，且既為土地徵收，則仍有必要依土地徵收之合憲要件加以審查。審查標準上，在立法者授權得發動區段徵收之法規中，將依其發動事由是否涉及公私協力之運用，先區分出另一種有益私人之區段徵收。對於一般型態，由於其乃是一種徵收範圍之擴張，故審查上應比現行司法院大法官對土地徵收所採之中度審查更為嚴格，而應採中度偏向嚴格審查；對於有益私人之型態，則應採嚴格審查。　　而在確認了其侵害了人民憲法第15條保障之財產權，及依憲法第10條、第15條及經社文公約第11條規定保障之居住權後，發現其有以下部分應會違反比例原則：一、容許先行區段徵收；二、現行部門法容許有益私人區段徵收或私用區段徵收，卻未在徵收過程中對於財務評估設有時常更新之監督及必要之中止機制；三、容許配餘地；四、純粹廣域開發時有市地重劃此更小侵害。　　在區段徵收之救濟上，由於各程序間彼此可能產生違法性承繼之多階段行政程序關係，且各程序內部亦可能各自形成多階段行政程序或多階段行政處分關係，在法律主張上或許對爭訟範圍有爭執之空間。　　而現行實務僅認土地徵收關係可成立普通共同訴訟，但本文認為參酌區段徵收整體規劃且連鎖配地之特性，應有解釋為類似必要共同訴訟之空間。如此一來，方能透過私益之集合，敦促行政法院能注重其有效權利保護之實現，亦即避免動輒被法院認定應退讓給公益，而被處分不停止執行、不准予回復原狀或作成情況判決此三者之運用剝奪人民權利完全回復之機會。又亦應得以參酌民事訴訟法第44條之2或消費者保護法第54條之規定，增設一土地徵收案件特別追加當事人制度。

關鍵字

區段徵收；多階段行政程序；多階段行政處分；違法性承繼；處分停止執行；回復原狀；情況判決

並列摘要

Being a rare system in the world, "Zone Expropriation" is still frequently used in Taiwan. Therefore, the discussion of its constitutionality or legal remedy would be pretty localized. 　　With the characteristics of Zone Expropriation, such as the enforcement, special sacrifices and depriving the existence of the property, this thesis believes that it should be a special type of land expropriation. Since it is still a type of land expropriation, it’s necessary to be reviewed under the constitutional requirements for land expropriation. In terms of judicial review standards, among the laws authorized by the legislator to initiate Zone Expropriation, one specific type of Zone Expropriation that is beneficial to the private sector should be distinguished first according to whether the cause of initiation involves Public-Private Partnership. For the general type of Zone Expropriation, since it’s a land expropriation with more expanded scope, the standard of review should be stricter than the current intermediate scrutiny of land expropriation adopted by the Justices of the Judicial Yuan, approaching to the strict scrutiny; meanwhile, Zone Expropriation that is beneficial to the private sector should be directly reviewed in the strict scrutiny. 　　After confirming that it violated the property rights guaranteed in Article 15 of the Constitution and the right of residence guaranteed in accordance with Articles 10 and 15 of the Constitution and Article 11 of The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, it is discovered that the following parts would violate the Principle of Proportionality: 1. Zone Expropriation might be carried out first; 2. Partial laws allow Zone Expropriation that is beneficial to the private sector, but do not have a constantly updated supervision and necessary suspension provisions for financial evaluation during the expropriation process; 3. Allow other construction lands left during the process; 4. In the case of pure wide-area development, “Urban Land Consolidation” would cause less damage . 　　Regarding the remedy of Zone Expropriation, since the various procedures may form Multi-Stage Administrative Procedures which effect “Succession of Illegality”, and each procedure may also form a Multi-Stage Administrative Procedure or a Multi-Stage Administrative Disposition relationship. It might change the scope you claim in court. 　　The current practice of court only recognizes that the landowners of land expropriation can apply to Ordinary Joint Proceedings, but this thesis believes that considering the characteristics of the overall planning of Zone Expropriation and the concatenate land allocation, it is reasonable to interpretate that the landowners of land expropriation can apply to the Necessary Joint Proceedings. In this way, through the collection of private interests, the Administrative Court might pay more attention to ensure that the individual’s rights are indeed being effectively protected. At the same time, it could avoid being easily determined by the court that the private interest should always be surrendered to the public interest. Also, by rejecting to stop an enforcement of Administrative Disposition, rejecting the restoration to the status quo ante and abusing Circumstantial Judgement, it would deprive the opportunity for landowners to fully recover their rights. This thesis also recommend that referred to Article 44-2 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Article 54 of the Consumer Protection Act, adding a representative system in land expropriation cases would be pretty constructive.