透過您的圖書館登入
IP:54.167.52.238
  • 學位論文

台灣環評訴訟之發展與變遷

The Development of Environmental Impact Assessment Litigations in Taiwan

指導教授 : 陳宛妤

摘要


本文從環評運作與環評訴訟發展的問題意識出發,以環評法實施以來的環評訴訟為主要研究對象,以實證分析為研究方法,試圖描繪出25年來環評訴訟的圖像與趨勢。首先透過立法過程的研究,分析台灣《環評法》、否決權出現的社會背景及政治環境,暸解《環評法》當時這樣制度設計的目標係給予環保主管機關更大的權力去維護環保的價值。進一步呈現實際運作中,人民所面對的制度現實,並分析實際環評案件通過的情形,發現在2012年之前絕大多數的案件都是以有條件通過一階環評,然而在2014年以後,逐漸不再以附條件通過環評結論,而改以直接通過為多數。 在了解制度運作的實際面貌後,進一步做裁判分析,從不同訴訟類型的數量及年代分佈來觀察整體環評訴訟的發展圖像。首先發現開發單位所提起之訴訟,多針對環評通過後,行政機關對其環評執行缺失之環境監督決定;而人民則多針對環評結論提起訴訟,人民對環評結論感到不滿的情況較開發單位多。其次,就人民提起最多數的,訴求撤銷環評結論之確定案件中,勝訴率為48%,法院在多數案件中均願意實質審查環評爭議項目,且近年在採證上越來越積極。第三,以團體名義提起之訴訟僅有1件勝訴,顯示團體訴訟、公民訴訟難以實踐。 針對以上觀察到的幾個重要現象,進一步分析重要案件。首先在司法及行政的互動方面,雖然從結果來看,行政機關似乎符合了法院過去的期待,並未於一階環評結論上附條件。然而從實際審查過程來看,環委會的運作其實可能幾乎沒有改變,只是行政機關將最終呈現出來的行政處分外觀,修改成法院難以找出問題的樣貌,以避免遭撤銷。其次,少數法院對多數見解提出質問,挑戰多數見解對環評程序的理解,認為一二階環評,並無所謂形式審查與實質審查之差異。應回歸平實討論環評程序、實質審查環評過程之違誤。第三,團體提起環評訴訟遭判敗訴,原因除法律要件與法律解釋方面的嚴格,也涉及早期環境運動中法律專業僅在將近訴訟時才介入協助。因此當環境法律人以團隊作戰的形式,及早協助環境運動的進行,在訴訟結果上即使名義上並非「團體」的勝利,但實現環境正義的訴訟成果亦是全體所共享。

並列摘要


Environmental Impact Assessment Act (EIAA) has been implementing in Taiwan more than 25 years. The leading position of the environmental protection authorities (EPAs) during the EIA review and their veto power on projects are the main features of Taiwan’s EIAA. The legislative intent of such design is to give EPAs greater power to safeguard the value of environmental protection. After calculating all types of the Environmental Litigations in Taiwan, we can find that the people, that may file litigations in the name of an individual resident or a group, are more likely to be dissatisfied with the EIA results than the developers. And the residents wins large scale (48%) of the cases which they filed against the EIA conclusions; while only one case filed by groups won, indicating that class action suits or citizen suits are hard to access. This thesis then further observes the annual data of EIA conclusions and some important judicial adjucation. It argues that under the strict scrutiny of the courts, though lots of EIA conclusions were revoked, showing the courts’ preference towards environmental protection, but in reality the operations of the EIA reviews were hardly changed due to the structural problems of the law. On the contrary, when facing cases filed by groups, the courts conservatively examine the plaintiff’s capacity of fileing litigations. Therefore, this thesis suggests that the courts should review the EIA conclusions more substantially and detailedly, and be more positive on the issue of the groups’ capacity of fileing class action suits or citizen suits, before any legislative reforms or administrative improvments have been taken place.

參考文獻


(一) 專書
杜文苓,《環境風險與公共治理:探索台灣環境民主實踐之道》,2015年4月,五南:台北。
柯澤東,《環境法論》,1993年3月,二版,自版:台北。
陳敏,《行政法總論》,2011年9月,七版,自版:台北。
陳慈陽,《環境法總論》,2011年11月,三版,元照:台北。

延伸閱讀