| 摘要: | 促進民間參與公共建設法(以下簡稱促參法)在民國八十九年制定、九十年修定，其精神為提昇公共服務水準，加速社會經濟發展，並促進民間參與公共建設。施行至今已有許多案例，並浮現出不少爭議，在報章雜誌上常見許多報導。部分的促參案件所面臨的問題是主辦機關與民間機構雖已簽約，但因程序上的瑕疵而使其無法依約履行，或雖有瑕疵仍照原合約履約，此類爭議中，該投資契約的有效性將影響後續處理辦法，而投資契約之法律性質，是探討該契約有效性的關鍵所在。 依促參法之救濟程序，其將最優申請人之甄審與投資契約之簽訂依兩階段理論設計之。然而其究竟為公法契約亦或是私法契約，此性質之界定將影響契約所受之規範、適用之程序、救濟之方式、契約雙方之責任等，實有進一步討論之必要。 以「民間參與高速公路電子收費系統建置及營運」案(以下簡稱ETC案)為例，在契約簽訂後遭法院判決撤銷其最優申請人之資格，並重回第二階段甄審。但是國道一號、國道三號各收費站的ETC系統業已建置完成，並自民國九十五年二月起營運至今，OBU申裝量達三十二萬部，每日平均使用率約21%，其中大車使用率超過 63%。 若ETC契約之性質為公法契約，極有可能必須將所有設備回復原狀，對於用路人及已安裝OBU之用戶造成不便，增加社會負擔，對將來其他的投資契約造成行政機關或司法機關不敢貿然判定契約無效之後果；若其為私法契約，則契約可能繼續有效，如此，次優申請人救濟實益相當有限。 故本研究之目的有二，一為ETC契約的法律性質作一探討，並提出投資契約性質判斷之構想，以期對後續的處置方式建議其法律規範。二為ETC案之後續處理方式提出看法，在合適的法律架構下，以法律經濟學的角度考量後續之處理方式，以期達成減少社會衝擊、維持法律公正之結果。 The “Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects” was promulgated in 2000, and was revised in 2001. The purpose of the Act is to improve the standard of public service, accelerate the social economical development, and to promote private participation in public construction. There are many cases implemented since the establishment of the Act and there are many disputes emerged and were seen on the newspaper and reports. Some of the problems that the responsible agencies facing are the flaws existing in the tendering process which have made the execution of contract stalled or made the contract executed under disputes. In such situations, the disputes will affect the validity of the contract. The key point of the validity of contract is very much related to the legal characterization of the contract. According to the appeal procedures in the Act, to select the best applicant and to sign a concession agreement are separated into two phases. The process and procedure of appeal mechanism are dependent of the legal characterization of the contract. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish the legal characterization of the contract. Take the project “Private Participation in Electronic Toll Collection” (as project ETC thereinafter) as an example, Taipei Superior Administrative Court rescinded the qualification of the best applicant right after that the contract has been signed, and the selection committee should evaluate afresh. But the installation of the ETC system has been completed on the National Freeway No.1 and No.3 and has began to operate since February 2006 till now. Over 320 thousand vehicles has installed the OBU unit. The average utility rate was 13% per day for the smaller vehicles and 63% for the larger vehicles. If the ETC concession agreement is an administrative contract, it is probable that all the ETC facilities must be dismantled in order to restore to the original situation. If this situation happened, it will greatly reduce the traffic efficiency on freeway and frustrate those drivers who have bought OBU units. It will also increase public cost. Thus, the responsible agency of the contract and court may not be willing to declare the contract to be invalid thoughtlessly. If the ETC concession agreement is a civil contract, it may be valid. Consequently, the practical benefit of the second best applicant in the appeal procedures may be limited. So, there are two purposes of this study. First, investigate the legal characterization of ETC contract, and propose a feasible solution for judgment. And according to that we may be able to suggest a legal norm of the fellow-up solutions. Second, use the Economic Analysis of Law to analyze the fellow-up solutions, to reduce the impact to community and to maintain justice. |
