區域計畫法上責任人與事後管制處分問題之探討

由於違反區域計畫法之處分對象在實務運作上常生爭議，本文為探究其問題所在，遂整理歷年違反該法之行政救濟案件所發現的問題，以德國警察法危害防止之法理為基礎，探討有關危害防止義務、責任人及事後管制對象等問題。經研究結果認為，現行區域計畫法以下各項似有檢討修正之必要：特定人應負狀態責任義務，應以法律明定或授權行政機關課予之；原則上法律不宜明定具體化義務之繼受。狀態責任人宜以法律明定之，惟「使用人」不宜納入其範圍；行政執行費用之負擔對象應有合理之規定。另外，行政機關行使裁量權時，並非必然以其身分逕行認定義務類型，仍應於具體個案中認定之；危害排除或防止責任人之選擇，宜訂定裁量準則，而該準則似較不適合運用在處以行政罰之對象上；狀態責任人原則上似應著重於危害排除或防止之義務，以其特性似不應處以行政罰或納入共同違法之對象，宜採取行政執行措施為妥；行政機關課予特定人限期改善處分時，仍應考量受處分人對危害物有無事實上之管領力與處分權，否則易生課予「法律上或事實上不能」之作為或不作義務的不當行政處分。

關鍵字

區域計畫法；危害防止；狀態責任人；行政罰；限期改善

並列摘要

Due to the fact that there is a constant controversy in the operation of punishment object in violation of the Regional Planning Act.In order to explore the problems, this article will sort out the problems found in administrative remedy cases that have violated the Act over the years. By the legal principles of hazard prevention, we will discuss issues related to the duty of hazard prevention, liability person and the punishment object of post-event control. According to the research results, the following regional plans seem to have the need for review and amendment: The specific person shall be responsible for the state liability and shall be prescribed by law or authorized by the administrative organ; in principle, the Act should not specify the succession of materialized obligations. The state liability person should be clearly defined by law, but the “user” should not be included in the scope; the burden object of administrative execution expenses should have reasonable provisions. In addition, when the administrative organ exercises discretion, the use of identity to define the type of obligation is not inevitable, even if may still need to be defined in specific cases; For the purpose of elimination and prevention of hazards choices a liability person, discretion criteria rules should be established, while this form of criterion seems to be less suitable for use in the object of administrative punishment; In principle, the state liability person should focus on the obligation to exclude or prevent the hazard, the characteristics of this responsibility should not be subject to administrative penalties or include the objective of joint punishment. it is advisable to take administrative enforcement measures; When an administrative requires a specific person adeadline improvment of a disciplinary action, it should still consider whether the punished person has the de facto management power and the right to dispose of the hazard. otherwise, it will be prone to grant improper administrative sanctions from “the impossibility of de jure or de facto” obligation of action or non-action.