法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
接近司法之權利內涵的擴張-以歐洲環境法與德國環境救濟法作為觀察(Contiguous Expansion of Configuration of Judicial Right: Observations on European Environmental Law and German Environmental Relief Law)
文獻引用
編著譯者: 王韻茹
出版日期: 2019.01
刊登出處: 台灣/國立中正大學法學集刊第 62 期/171-249 頁
頁  數: 79 點閱次數: 792
下載點數: 316 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 中正大學法律學系 授權者指定不分配權利金給作者)
關 鍵 詞: 訴訟權程序權權利救濟團體訴訟歐洲環境法
中文摘要: 臺灣近年來發生多起環境保護與經濟開發衝突爭議的環境訴訟,主要均涉及了行政法院受理時之行政訴訟要件與審查範圍。比較法上,在歐洲環境法與其會員國轉化後之環境救濟法制中也有類似的爭議與討論,對此及接近司法之權利的探討。本文藉由觀察歐洲與德國關於環境救濟在接近司法權利內涵之擴張的發展,作為我國現行環境保護的行政救濟法制之借鏡與再思。
首先,本文對於國際法和歐洲法就環境保護之司法救濟的法規範加以說明,其中主要涉及奧爾胡斯公約(Aarhus Convention)。該公約是以保障環境事物決定程序中之資訊公開請求權、民眾參與以及接近司法之權利為目的。具體而言,資訊公開、民眾參與與開放司法救濟被稱為此一公約的三支柱,本文以該公約中接近司法之權利作為主要研究範圍。依據該公約第 9 條,締約國必須確保人民得透過司法審查環境事物領域中的公部門決定之合法性。進而由於歐盟與其會員國均為該公約締約國,為了執行該公約,歐盟亦有制定相關指令,要求會員國必須加以轉化於內國法律。承上,本文乃進一步整理與分析歐洲法院以司法救濟路徑實現環境保護目標的訴訟個案為出發。在案例選擇中,主要是以德國法制轉化該公約作為觀察對象。主要的原因在於德國法制向來較強調實體權利面向,而對於上述公約強調程序保障,在轉化過程中可能遭遇困難,此等困難與爭議相當具觀察價值;次要原因在於我國行政訴訟法深受德國行政法之影響,從德國法之發展應有值得再次借鏡之處。
然而,即使德國於 2006 年制定了環境訴訟救濟法,其目的在於轉化歐盟指令與實現奧爾胡斯公約的權利保護要求,惟其規定備受批評與挑戰,尤其是來自於歐洲法院的質疑。本文藉由分析相關的歐洲法院判決以及後續德國環境救濟法之修正,探討環境保護應如何透過司法救濟而得以實現。
基於上述比較法之觀察和結果,回到本國法的部分,本文先對廣開司法救濟管道作為訴訟權的憲法保障,說明這是來自於大法官釋憲實務所開展的訴訟權核心內涵。其次,檢視與探討在我國環境保護案例中所呈現的行政訴訟爭議與問題為何,以及其與前述憲法保障內涵之關聯何在。最後,對於訴訟權保障是否得以實現環境保護條款,聚焦我國環境訴訟在接近司法之權利內涵的擴張,從比較法觀點加以探討與說明,並總結提出本文看法。
英文關鍵詞: Right of Instituting Legal ProceedingsProcedural RightJudicial RemedyGroup LitigationEuropean Environmental Law
英文摘要: Recently there are quite a few litigations due to disputes in environmental protection and economic development. Such litigations mainly involve required assessment for an administrative procedure and judicial review. This article will first explain the provisions, primary the Aarhus Convention on the judicial remedy for the environmental protection. The Aarhus Convention is to protect and ensure the right for demanding access to the necessary information, the right for public participation, and the right to access judicial remedy, environemtnal protection through administrative procedures. Specifically, the information accessibility, public participation and judicial remedy are the three pillars of the Aarhus Convention. This article will focus only on the judicial remedy. According to Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention, the contracting party thereto must ensure the legitimacy of the decision made by certain administration for individuals’ requests for judicial review on the environmental protection. The EU and its member countries are all contracting parties of the Aarhus Convention in that the EU issues relevant directives to request its member countries to enact the Convention into its law for implementation purpose. Secondly, this article will organize and analyze cases where the European Courts, by granting judicial remedy achieved the goal of environmental protection and cases selected from German law will be examined as the implementation of the Convention in Germany focuses on substantial right. Hence, it is plausible that German legislation might be facing difficulties when it comes to enacting the Convention into its law since enforcement of the Convention. Moreover, its great emphasis on procedure perspective is worth discussing because that Taiwan Administrative Procedure Law was heavily influenced by German Administration Law. Nevertheless, German has enacted Environmental Appeals Act in 2006 with a goal to transforming EU directives and meeting the requirement for right protection provided in Aarhus Convention. The provisions therein were readily criticized and challenged, especially from the European courts. This article will analyze relevant judgements and cases from the European courts and subsueqent amendments to the German environmental remedial law to explore how to realize environmental protection through judicial remedy. In respect to law in Taiwan, this article will explain that the expansion of judicial remedy is the realization of constitutional protection for the litigation right, and such realization is also the core of the Constitutional Court practice as well as explore disputes and issues of some selected environmental protection administrative litigations and their connection to the previous constitutional protection. Lastly, discussion and suggestion on possibilities to realize environmental protection provisions by ensuring people’s litigation right in comparative law perspective will be addressed.
目  次: 壹、問題緣起
貳、接近司法之權利內涵在國際法與歐洲環境法的規範基礎
一、歐盟人權憲章與歐盟條約中的環境保護條款
二、奧爾胡斯公約作為重要的規範基礎
(一)概論
(二)奧爾胡斯公約第 9 條規範架構與內涵
參、德國環境救濟法在接近司法之權利內涵的擴張
一、概論:轉化歐洲環境法之德國環境救濟法
二、2006 年環境救濟法之規範重點與內容
三、歐洲法院對德國環境救濟法之審查與影響
(一)2011 年 Trianel 判決與團體訴訟要件的限制
(二)2011 年 Braunbär 判決與保護規範之擴張解釋與適用
(三)中間結論:2013 年環境救濟法之修正
(四)2013 年 Altrip 判決與法院審查範圍
(五)2015 年環境救濟法之再次修正
四、行政程序保障與司法救濟之交錯
(一)2015 年 Kommission/Deutschland 判決與程序保障
(二)2017 年環境救濟法之修正
五、小結
肆、我國環境訴訟中接近司法之權利的實踐與反思
一、訴訟權核心內涵與立法形成訴訟制度
二、訴訟權能之開展
(一)個人權利訴訟與保護規範
(二)(環境)公益團體訴訟
三、法院審查行政決定合法性之範圍與密度-以環評結論為例
(一)程序合法性要件之審查
(二)實體合法性要件之審查
四、接近司法之權利內涵擴張之實踐與反思-與德國救濟法比較
伍、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
王韻茹,接近司法之權利內涵的擴張-以歐洲環境法與德國環境救濟法作為觀察,國立中正大學法學集刊,第 62 期,171-249 頁,2019年01月。
返回功能列