民間參與公共建設適用國家賠償法之研究－以國家賠償法第三條為探討核心

State Compensation on Cases of Private Participation in Public Infrastructure－An Analysis on Article 3-1 of The State Compensation Law

黃啟翔(Chii-Shyang Hwang)

指導教授 ： 林春元

中原大學/商學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2015年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/CYCU.2015.00158

摘要

摘 要
隨著憲法中社會國原則的確立，國家具有積極實現社會正義與社會安全的使命，從而形成種種照顧人民生存所需，包括基本民生需求（水、電、交通、能源等）以及強制性社會保險等國家給付任務與相應發展的給付行政，「給付國家」的發展正是憲法社會國原則所支持與表徵的國家圖像。但國家在面對隨著社會生活的繁雜化、人民對民生需求的提高而不斷擴張的「生存照顧」之任務時，國家於有限的財政能力下，實有必要將「給付」責任託付予第三人共同來擔負。職此，「行政任務的私部門化」即成為現代國家縮減行政任務、精簡人事、節省國家財政支出及提升公共服務水準與效率之行政革新手段。

而公共建設作為一國經濟發展之指標，亦涉及人民基本需求，因而成為國家重要給付行政之一環。「民間參與公共建設」制度即在這股「行政任務私部門化」的浪潮中，因運而生，不僅能解決政府財政收支之負擔、創造民間企業之商機，亦能提昇公共建設服務之效率與品質，儼然形成「國家」－「企業」－「人民」三方的三贏局面。然而，這樣的制度在現今已跳脫傳統上「生存照顧」的給付關係（亦即國家與人民間的「二面關係」），民間參與公共建設作為一種給付行政領域的變遷，亦使傳統公法學與法制面面臨不小之衝擊與挑戰。其中，探討並解決因公私協力所引發之行政法層面問題，反映在國家賠償法上，厥為由民間參與公共建設所興建、營運之「公共建設」，其設置或管理有欠缺，致人民生命、身體或財產受損害者，是否有國家賠償法第三條第一項規定適用之問題。

　　簡之，「民間參與公共建設」制度廣泛而言即是一種探討國家將民生建設的設施營運管理權挪移民間團體（企業）運作和供給之制度，惟國賠法第三條第一項規定所稱之「公有」要素，在我國學說與實務上，多擴張解釋認為凡供公共使用或供公務使用之設施，事實上處於國家或地方自治團體管理狀態者，均有國家賠償法第三條之適用。從而促參法第八條所定之若干類型，無論是「民設民營」或「公設民營」都是意謂著「民間管理」，國家在此僅有「監督」責任，是以，就民間參與公共建設在此二模式的運作下，倘有「管理上」的欠缺，即無法符合通說與實務對國家賠償法第三條第一項「公有」要素的定義，遂引發該制度能否適用國家賠償法之疑慮。

　　由於學者對於此「公有」要素在理解上各異，故截至民間參與公共建設被廣泛運用之現今，對於民間參與之公共建設之設置或管理上欠缺，是否能適用國賠法第三條所定「物之責任」？在學說見解上尚未形成共識，相關修正草案亦尚未修正通過。而在法學與行政實務上對民營化相關法制探討的重心，毋寧應該從「前民營化」階段之民營化概念、民營化在憲法上之容許性、民營化之程序建立等逐漸移轉至「後民營化」之相關問題上，亦即行政任務私部門化後之國家與社會在國家賠償責任上之重分配。如此，尤其在權利救濟體系上方能建立起完整的制度規範。

關鍵字

國家賠償法 ； 擔保責任 ； 促進民間參與公共建設法 ； 公有公共設施

並列摘要

Abstract

As the principles of welfare state has established in the constitution, the country has a mission to do its best to accomplish the social justice and security, thereby forming all kinds of people need, including basic needs of living (in respect of water, electric, transportation, energy source, etc.), the welfare tasks like obligatory social insurance with its relative welfare administration. So, the development of a “Welfare State” is absolutely the country image what the constitutional principle of welfare state supports and symbolizes. However, when facing the gradually complicated social life and the expansion of the life of care due to better living quality people pursue, the country, under the limited financial capability, shall commit the responsibility of “welfare” to third party to share the task. For this reason, the privatization of administrative task becomes the administrative reform method to reduce the administrative task, downsizing the personnel, save the government expenditure and improve the quality and the efficiency of public service in the modern country.

The public works become an important step of national welfare because it is not only the target of the development of national economy but also part of people needs. The Act for “Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects” is the act that developed from the trend of the privatization of administrative task, not only is the solution of the burden of Government Revenues and expenditure, the business opportunity for local enterprises but improve the quality and the efficiency of public work service and merely become the multi-win situation amount the “Nation”-“Enterprise”-“People, (or “two-side relationship” between Nation and People.) Having Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects as the change of welfare administration field makes quit an impact and challenge on the traditional public law and its policy. It investigates and solves the problems caused by the administrative law due to the Public-Private Partnership. However, we are not sure that whether or not the Item 1 of Article 3 of National Compensation Law is qualified to “people constructing or operating public works for the civil utilization is not safe or ill management that damages or violates the civil life, body health or wealth.

In a word, the broadly speaking of the people participating public works is the system that investigates whether or not the nation shall move the right of operation management of the people's livelihood construction to local government (enterprise). Only that more broadly speaking of “government-owned” in the Item 1 of Article 3 of State Compensation Law under the theory and practice in our country is the devices that provide for public or official use. In fact, the Article 3 of State Compensation Law fit in with the device either under the operation of the government or local government, thereby some types formulated in the Article 8 of the Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects, no matter it’s “local constructing and operating” or “government constructing, local operating,” all means “local management” and what the government shall do here is guaranteeing. Under the operation of these two patterns, if the people participating public works is ill management, it is not qualified for the general and practical definitions of the “government-owned” said in the Article 3-1 of State Compensation Law. For that matter, we doubt whether or not State Compensation Law can be applied to such institution.

Although the people participating public works is widely used nowadays, how scholars comprehend the “government-owned” is different so there is no compatible views for the theory about whether or not the “product liability” formulated in the Article 3 of State Compensation Law can be applied to the unsaved and ill managed people participating public work, and the government does not pass the relative amended draft as well. The main core investigation for the relevant policy of privatization in legal science and practice shall start from the concept of privatization in “pre-privatization” stage, the admissibility of constitution towards to privatization, the setup of privatization procedure, etc. and then gradually move to the problems of post-privatization, that is to say, the redistribution of the government compensation liability in the nation and society after administrative Tasks privatization. To do so, we can establish the complete institution instructions for Right-relief system.

並列關鍵字

public construction ； Guarantee State ； State Compensation Law

參考文獻

11. 蘇世名，民間參與公共建設案營運績效評估之研究-以臺北車站特定專用區交九用地開發案為例，國立交通大學運輸科技與管理學系碩士班，2011年。

7. 許登科，德國擔保國家理論為基礎之公私協力(ÖPP)法制－對我國促參法之啓示，國立臺灣大學法律研究所博士學位論文，2007年。

6. 洪國欽，促進民間參與公共建設法逐條釋義，元照，2008年1版。

9. 葉張基，〈民間參與公共建設國家賠償責任之解構〉，《國立中正大學法學集刊》，第24期，2008年，頁161-206。

5. 邱聰智，新訂民法債編通則（上），輔仁大學法學叢書編輯委員會彙編，2003年新訂一版。