促進民間參與公共建設法中投資契約性質之研究

本文目的在於探討促進民間參與公共建設法中投資契約之性質。隨著國家型態的轉變，國家所負擔之義務也逐漸擴張。當代的社會法治國家中，國家除了不得侵害人民的自由權利以外，尚肩負起了照料人民生存的給付義務。然而，國家任務的擴張卻造成了財政上沉重的壓力，因此政府逐漸將部分行政任務交由民間執行，而有民營化概念的出現。在過去，行政機關將任務交給民間執行時，私人僅作為助手的角色，國家仍肩負著第一線的執行責任。但因為任務的複雜化與財政壓力，行政法學、國家學上興起了公私協力、合作國家、擔保國家、行政合作法之理念，行政機關與人民居於平等的地位，共同完成國家所承擔的給付義務。而行政機關與人民之公私協力關係，通常會以契約作為合作的模式。在我國法中，契約又區分為私法契約與行政程序法中的行政契約，兩者的性質有很大的差異。私法契約基於私法自治與契約嚴守的理念，原則上不允許契約之一方任意變動調整契約。而行政契約因為重視行政任務之達成，行政程序法賦予了行政機關得基於公益的考量，在特定情況下得變動契約之內容之單方調整權。關於私法契約與行政契約之特色及區分標準也是本論文之重點之一。公私協力關係之契約應採用何種契約形式，在實務學說上素有爭議。而我國之促進民間參與公共建設法作為公私協力法制之一，同樣的也面臨到該法中投資契約之定性難題。同時，又因為促參法中採取的多階段行政程序，而投資契約之定性上可能受到雙階理論之影響。本文首先排除了雙階理論對契約定性之影響，再分別整理了支持私法契約說與行政契約說之論述，最後提出了本文見解—個案認定說。個案認定說認為基於促參建設項目之不同，而區分公益性之強弱，進而認定契約之性質。

關鍵字

促進民間參與公共建設法；投資契約；行政契約；行政合作法；雙階理論

並列摘要

The purpose of this article is to discuss the nature of the Concession Agreement in the Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects. As the models of state change, the obligations of state expend. Apart from not infringing upon the freedom of people, modern Social Democratic State (Sozialer Rechtsstaat) also has the obligation to maintain people’s livelihood. However, the expansion of state duties has caused a heavy financial burden, government then gradually handing over some of the administrative duties to the non-governmental, also known as “Privatization”. In the past, when the administration handed over the duties to the non-governmental, the non-governmental was only an assistant, state still shouldered the frontline executive responsibilities. But because of the complicating tasks and the financial pressure, ideas like Public-Private-Partnerships, the Cooperative State（ Kooperativer Staat ） , the Warranted State （ Gewährleistungsstaat ） and Administration-Cooperation Law have been rising up in the fields of administrative law and political science. The administration and the people are on the equal footing, together, finishing the obligation state bears. In Public-Private-Partnerships, the administration and the people usually cooperate in the form of contracts. Contracts can be sorted into two very different kinds: private contract and administrative contract in the Administrative Procedure Act. Based on the principles of Self-Rule of Private Law and Sanctity of Contract, private contract disallows one contracting party altering contract arbitrarily. And administrative contract attaches importance to the achievement of administrative duties, the Administrative Procedure Act entitles the administration the right of unilateral modification, the administration may alter the contract under specific circumstances, for example, in view of public interest. The criterion distinguishing private contract from administrative contract and their characteristics are also the key points of this article. There have been debates in both theory and practice about which contract form Public-Private-Partnerships should apply. As one of the Public-Private-Partnerships laws, Taiwan’s Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects is also confronted with the difficulty of Concession Agreement’s characterization. Meanwhile, due to the Multi-leveled Administrative Procedure the Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects adopts, the Concession Agreement’s characterization may be affected by Two Stage Theory. Firstly, this article excludes the effect Two Stage Theory has on Agreement’s characterization. Secondly, it summarizes claims supporting Concession Agreement either as private contract or administrative contract respectively. Finally, it believes that individual’s condition must be taken into consideration, in accordance with different infrastructure projects, the nature of the contract will be determined by different levels of public interest.