我國行政訴訟法上情況判決制度之研究—以土地徵收案件為中心

情況判決制度為日本所創，係基於公共利益重於私人利益的目的而不予撤銷違法的行政處分，並另行給予原告損害賠償之替代性措施。我國於1998年行政訴訟法修法時引進該制度，至今20餘年來實務上大多適用於土地徵收案件，以徵收後建設已完成係具有重大公益為由，駁回原告之撤銷請求，使其繼續忍受該違法徵收狀態。惟情況判決各成立要件應如何解釋以及後續作為替代性救濟措施之損害賠償應如何實踐？本文在此以土地徵收案件為研究中心，試圖釐清該案件於適用情況判決時於審查上應如何落實；並針對後續損害賠償責任之性質、程序上應如何請求及立法檢討層面上提出初步的看法。首先，本文認為土地徵收案件適用情況判決要件之審查模式，應與土地徵收處分合法性類似，存有公益性與必要性兩階段審查模式。於公益性階段，係考量既存事實是否值得保護，須具備極重要的公益內容；於必要性階段，應適用比例原則，法院須經利益衡量後除本件既成事實產生之公益顯大於土地所有人之私人利益，始作成情況判決。再者，單獨以國家賠償以及損失補償法理並無法完全解釋有關情況判決損害賠償責任的性質，本文試圖以違法—有責的國家賠償法第2條損害賠償責任以及違法—無責的損失補償責任論理來解構情況判決的損害賠償責任；又第199條第2項規定提出之損害賠償訴訟與國家賠償訴訟間係構成請求權基礎競合；且於法規適用上，賠償方法及範圍應類推適用國家賠償法之相關規定，以填補法規適用上的漏洞。最後，為杜爭議，實務以及立法者應盡早確立情況判決損害賠償責任之性質；且以金錢賠償作為賠償方法較符合情況判決制度目的，行政法院自應不得以其他損害賠償方法命被告機關為賠償；再者應借鏡日本法有關中間違法宣示判決規定，俾使原告能提早提出賠償聲明，以達訴訟經濟之要求。

關鍵字

情況判決要件審查；土地徵收；公益性；必要性；替代性救濟措施

並列摘要

The circumstantial judgment system was created by Japan. Based on the public welfare over private welfare, the illegal administrative sanctions will not be revoked and the plaintiff will be given an alternative remedies of damages. Taiwan introduced this system during the revision of the Administrative litigation in 1998. For more than 20 years, most of them have been applied to land expropriation cases,on the grounds that the construction has been completed after the expropriation.Because there has an significant public welfare, the plaintiff's revocation request is rejected to continue endure the illegal circumstance. However, how should the establishment requirements of the circumstantial judgment be interpreted and how should the subsequent damages as an alternative remedies be implemented？This article takes the land expropriation case as the research topic to try to clarify how the case should be implemented in the review when the application is judged; and to give preliminary views on the nature of the responsibility of damages liabilty, how to request in procedurally, and the review of legislation . First of all, this article believes that the review mode of the application requirements of land expropriation cases should be similar to the legality of land expropriation and disposal. There are two-stage review modes of public welfare and necessity. At the public welfare stage, it is necessary to consider whether the existing facts are worthy of protection, and it must have extremely important public welfare content. At the necessity stage, the principle of proportionality should be applied. The court must measure the benefits and exclude this established fact to claim the circumstantial judgment. Furthermore, the nature of damage and compensation principle cannot be fully analyzed the damage liable of circumstantial judgment. This article attempts to deconstruct the situation based on the theory of the liability of Article 2 of the Unlawful Responsibility Liability for Damage and the Unlawful No Responsibility Liability for Damage; also, the competition between the lawsuit for damages and the state compensation law provided in Article 199 (2) constitutes the basis of the claim；and in the application of regulations, the method and scope of compensation shall be analogized to the relevant provisions of the applicable national compensation law in order to fill gaps in the application of regulations Finally, In order to eliminate controversy, practice and legislators should establish the nature of the the responsibility of damages liabilty of circumstantial judgment as soon as possible；and the use of monetary compensation as the compensation method is more in line with the purpose of the circumstantial judgment. The administrative court should not use other methods of compensation to order the defendant to compensate；furthermore, it is necessary to use the Japanese law to declare judgments on intermediate violations, so that the plaintiff can make an early declaration of compensation in order to meet the requirements of the litigation economy.