本文係以當事人適格要件為探討對象,即探討在具體的行政爭訟案件中,原告是否具有提起訴訟之資格。我國行政訴訟制度之目的係以「權利保護」為主,輔以「客觀法秩序」之維護。因此,人民提起訴訟需主張其權利受侵害,僅在例外之情形,由立法者明文規定下,人民得為維護公益提起「客觀訴訟」。由於主觀訴訟與客觀訴訟的基本功能取向不同,當事人適格要件所承載之內涵亦應有不同,因此,將其二者分開探討。 第二章係以我國學說上對於當事人適格要件之探討為主。我國行政法學繼受德國,原告必須具有主觀公權利始得提起訴訟,而是否具有公權利之判斷標準則以「保護規範理論」為判斷標準。而關於客觀訴訟制度,我國行政訴訟法係規定於行政訴訟法第九條之公益訴訟及第三十五條的團體訴訟,在此介紹制度設計目的及其理論基礎。 第三章係以美國法制之介紹為中心,由於我國環境實體法中相關公民訴訟之條款及環境影響評估制度皆移植自美國,因此,係藉由美國聯邦最高法院自七O年代至今所累積之判決,觀察其發展之脈絡,整理其對「當事人適格要件」之形成過程及其內涵。 第四章係以我國司法實務對於環境法上「當事人適格」要件之見解為主軸,分析法院判決中對於當事人適格要件之審查過程為何,判決主要以最高行政法院之判決為主,因其代表實務界之主流見解,而近來受矚目之環境訴訟但未由最高行政法院做出中決判決者,則整理高等行政法院之判決以觀察之。 最後,在第五章提出本文之觀察結果,藉著分析我國法制與外國法制之理論之形成之實務之運作,以供學界及實務制度發展之參考。
This thesis mainly focuses on the doctrine of standing in the administrative litigation law. Standing means, in the specific case of public law, whom would be eligible to bring the suit. The purpose of administrative law in our country is emphasis on protecting people’s right, more than supervising the administrative right. In the basis of that, people bringing suit should claim their own rights are at stake. Except that, the law could authorize people to bring the suit for the interest of the public. Based on the difference of two systems, the author separates them to discuss. In chapter II, it focuses on the standing doctrine of the administrative law in Taiwan. The administrative law of our country is analogous to German, requesting that plaintiff must claim he own the right to bring the administrative suit. The theory of protective norms is used to decide whether plaintiff was qualified. Besides, in this chapter also introduces systems of class action and citizen suit in Taiwan. In chapter III, it emphasizes on the doctrine of standing in America. Observing on cases of the United States’ Supreme Court, we could understand the development of standing in environmental law. In chapter IV, it observes on the practice of standing in judicial courts in Taiwan. Generalizing some requirements from these cases, provides people to compare with the system of the United States. In conclusion, the author analyzes these requirements of standing in the environmental law system and present some suggestions to the judicial practice.