透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.144.102.239
  • 學位論文

論無障礙空間作為公法上權利:釋字第469號解釋四個判準下之反思

Accessibility as a Subjective Public Right: Introspection on Four Criteria in the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 469

指導教授 : 許宗力
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


身障者是否擁有訴訟權能,而能提起無障礙空間訴訟,關鍵在於是否擁有「無障礙空間之公法上權利」。前揭公法上權利是否存在,我國最高行政法院見解認為,國內〈身權法〉〈支持服務〉章無障礙空間系爭規定僅課與行政機關義務,並未賦予身心障礙者權利,並非保護規範。準此,本文針對政府依據〈身權法〉〈支持服務〉章涉及無障礙空間之規定,所負有營造無障礙空間義務,遭到違反或怠於作為時,是否侵害身障者主觀權利此一問題進行探究。而在CRPD施行法通過後,在「人權模式」、「社會模式」之思維下,適用「新保護規範理論」,是否將產生不同過往國內實務之結論,亦值分析。 是以,本文以新保護規範理論之適用三步驟為經,而以釋字第469號解釋理由書內之四個判準為緯,針對CRPD與身權法之適用關係、CRPD結合身權法之法律解釋問題,及合理調整措施之使用,予以探究;並分別針對美國法及德國法規定予以分析。亦即,本文先釐清CRPD在我國的適用問題,確認其法律位階及法律衝突之解釋論;並藉此論證CRPD與身權法之關係。接著,就前開結論,進一步分析系爭規範是否亦同時寓有保障身障者之意旨?而此一法規範目的之探究,本文以四個判準作為新保護規範理論第二步驟適用上之基礎,探討:何謂身心障礙?無障礙空間之概念、反歧視法制及福利法制之影響,與訴訟能帶來之成效,並以之作為結論。最後,本文進一步類型化社會法上權利之內涵,並與CRPD引入之合理調整措施相結合,除了證立無障礙空間之公法上權利是否存在之外,亦能進一步釐清合理調整措施對於此類無障礙空間之訴所帶來的影響。

並列摘要


When the facilities or the constructions of the public entities are not accessible to persons of disabilities, there is a violation of the Disabilities Right Protection Law (hereinafter DRPL). However, the Supreme Court denied that persons of disabilities have standing to sue the public entities for constructing, accommodating, modifying, or adjusting the public facilities or constructions, since persons of disabilities don’t have the subjective public right of accessibility in DRPL. Considering that the Implementation Act of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter CRPD) came into force in 2014, this thesis attempts to analyze how CRPD and its spirit take effect on the rights of persons of disabilities, especially the subjective public right of accessibility. This thesis uses neue Schutznormtheorie and the Four Criteria provided in the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 469 as foundations to discuss how administrative court should use the aforesaid theory, Four Criteria and CRPD to make legal interpretation so as to recognize the existence of subjective public right of accessibility. In the aforesaid context, this thesis not only focuses on R.O.C. legal system, but also looks into the U.S. and Germany legal systems, and then makes introspection on the following issues: Who constitutes “disabilities”? What does “accessibility” mean? How does the welfare system or antidiscrimination system make effect on judicial system and the efficiency to sue for accessibility? Base on discussion of those questions, this thesis concludes that persons of disabilities shall have standing in administrative litigations when their subjective public rights of accessibility are violated.

參考文獻


呂緯武,《行政訴訟原告適格之研究-以美國法之比較為中心》,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文,2000年8月。
邱大昕,〈無障礙環境建構過程中使用者問題之探討〉,《台灣社會福利學刊》,第7卷第2期,2009年,頁16-49。
邵慧綺,〈談身心障礙者社區居住之環境建設相關法規〉,《特教論壇》第3期,2007年12月,頁76-94。
俞浩偉,《從憲法平等權探討我國身心障礙者就業保障之問題》,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文,2009年7月。
唐宜楨、陳心怡,〈從《身心障礙者權利公約》來探討身心障礙概念的新轉向〉,身心障礙研究》第6卷第4期,2008年,頁238-251。

延伸閱讀