| 關 鍵 詞： |
主觀公權利；反射利益；環境影響評估；保護規範理論、；多階段審查程序；多階段行政處分；第三人效力之行政處分；公益訴訟；公民訴訟；民眾訴訟 |
| 中文摘要： |
主觀公權利與反射利益有所不同，並有其區別實益。藉由「保護規範理論」，受到環境影響評估審查結論所影響的居民享有主觀公權利，並歸屬於環境影響評估法所保護的規範範圍。經行政法院認定環境影響評估審查結論公告為行政處分之後，又產生多階段審查程序或多階段行政處分之質變關係。本文主張受到環境影響評估審查結論影響的居民是行政處分效力所及之第三人，有訴訟權能，為行政處分之法律上利害關係人，得提行政起訴訟。反之，若受環境影響評估審查結論影響的居民非屬於第三人效力之行政處分，則因非法律上利害關係人，故原則上排除其具有訴訟權能，以防止民眾訴訟之發生。繼而，公益訴訟、公民訴訟或獨立參加訴訟成為探討上述問題時，衍生出來的重要議題。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Subjective Public Right；Reflective Interest；Environmental Impact Assessment；Protective Norm；Multi-Stage Review Procedure；Multi-Stage Administrative Action,；Effective Third Parties by Administrative Action；Public Interest Litigation；Citizen Litigation；Public Litigation |
| 英文摘要： |
The Subjective public right is different from reflective interest, and there are different benefits. With the “protective norm theory”, residents affected by the environmental impact assessment review conclusions embrace the subjective public right and fall within the scope of the norms protected by the environmental impact assessment law. After the Administrative Court had determined that the environmental impact assessment review conclusion announcement is an administrative action, the qualitative change of a multi-stage review procedure or the multi-stage administrative action has emerged. This article argues that the residents affected by the conclusions of the environmental impact assessment review are the third parties within the scope of the administrative action, and have litigation competence. They are the legally interested parties by the administrative action and may initiate administrative litigation. Conversely, if the residents affected by the environmental impact assessment review conclusions are not effective third parties by administrative action, they are not legally interested parties, so in principle, they are excluded from litigation competence to prevent public litigation. Then, public interest litigation, citizen litigation or independent participation in litigation became important topics derived when discussing the above issues.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、問題之提出
貳、主觀公權利與反射利益之區別與實益
一、二者之概念
二、區別之標準：以保護規範理論作為判斷
三、實益之種類
（一）決定是否具有法律上之利害關係
（二）決定是否具有訴訟權能
（三）決定是否具有公法上請求權
1. 依法申請
2. 課予義務訴訟
3. 一般給付訴訟
4. 預防性不作為訴訟
（四）決定是否得以國家賠償
參、「環境影響評估審查結論」公告之性質
一、行政處分
二、多階段行政程序
三、多階段行政處分
肆、受影響居民係「環境影響評估審查結論」效力之「第三人」
一、保護規範理論
二、法律上之利害關係人
三、行政處分非具第三人效力之情形
四、排除民眾訴訟
五、公益訴訟
六、獨立參加訴訟
伍、結論與建議
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|