兩岸環境起訴資格之比較-- 以訴訟實務案例比較為中心; Comparing the Plaintiffs in the Cross-strait Environmental Suits – A Case-Based Approach

NCU Institutional Repository > 客家學院 > 法律與政府研究所 > 博碩士論文 > Item 987654321/60710

jsp.display-item.identifier=請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: http://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/60710

题名:	兩岸環境起訴資格之比較-- 以訴訟實務案例比較為中心;Comparing the Plaintiffs in the Cross-strait Environmental Suits – A Case-Based Approach
作者:	鄭怡;Cheng,Yi
贡献者:	法律與政府研究所
关键词:	原告適格;起訴資格;公益訴訟;環境訴訟;保護規範理論;中國大陸
日期:	2013-07-30
上传时间:	2013-08-22 11:46:11 (UTC+8)
出版者:	國立中央大學
摘要:	台灣行政法體系向來深受德國法制之影響，但關於行政訴訟法第9條關於公益訴訟條文就環境訴訟而言僅能視為一基本法規定，具體的環境個別子法上卻是仿造美國環境法制。就訴權判斷上，台灣向來借助德國「保護規範理論」判斷行政機關事務權限以及當事人權利受侵害之範圍，亦以其做為原告適格之判斷；而美國雖採行「利益訴訟」之判斷方式，但基本上亦不承認毫無限制的公民訴訟而是採取盡量寬鬆認定「何謂利益受到損害」。至於台灣，就法規範而言，究竟係行政訴訟法第9條的「人民」？抑或水汙染防治法第72條第1項的「受害人民或公益團體」得提起？甚至是環境基本法第34條之「人民或公益團體」？法規規定不一致則競合適用上即產生疑義，而也就是因為台灣對於得以起訴之原告適格闡明尚不明確，故需輔以實務案觀察。相較於台灣，中國大陸係較先驗的架構出一套完整的環境法體系，且2013年生效的新民事訴訟法第55條已明文引進公益訴訟制度並以「法律規定的機關和有關組織」為原告適格，大陸學者也認為緊接著就是行政訴訟法之修訂。目前學說上已提出包括自然物、行政機關、NGO團體以及檢察院等4種可能原告適格對象，實務上各省也有不同的實務案例提出，雖法院理論論述或案例涵攝尚少(有些甚至直接不予受理)且仍未建立通案標準，但這些代表性案例都引發學者廣泛的討論及社會關注，故這些後續效應以及未來制度形成的趨勢，即為本論文觀察之重點。研究方法上，本論文以文獻歸納閱讀法為主，以立法資料以及質性訪談法，為求真正了解法律背後所代表的真義並獲取第一手實務資訊，研究成果上，本文整理出台灣及中國大陸具代表性案例並予以分析比教，相信對於有興趣研究相對難取得資料的中國大陸環境法者，可當作一篇前提理解文章；對於訴權概念釐清上，應亦有所助益。 Comparing the Plaintiffs in the Cross-strait Environmental Suits – A Case-Based Approach ABSTRACT The administrative and the legal system of R.O.C has always been deeply influenced by the German’s. However, the R.O.C.’s Article no.9 concerning the environmental litigation is simply a fundamental regulation, the detailed individual clause is referenced from the U.S.A. The R.O.C. typically borrows German’s ideal that the “Protection Regulation Theory”to ascertain the jurisdiction power within certain limits of administrative organizations, the range of rights of the litigant which was infringed upon, and the qualification of the plaintiffs nevertheless, the U.S.A. adopted the“Interest Litigation”- it denied unlimited civil litigation but tend to rule “the range of rights ”which was infringed upon as extensively as possible. The R.O.C.’s Legislation has not yet unified the definition of the standing. Is it the “civilian” mentioned in the Legislation Act 9? Or is it the “victimized individual or group” mentioned in the Water Polution Act 72-1? Or is it the “civilian and organization” mentioned in the Enviromental Act 34? And because the R.O.C.’s plaintiff target is unclear, ruled cases are needed as practical references. Comparing to Taiwan, China has already constructed a more comprehensive legal system in terms of Environmental Litigation. As stated by the new 2013’s Civil Litigation Law, Article no.55 provides “related and authorized institutions and organizations ”to conduct civil public interests litigation. Chinese scholars pointed out that the next step is to revise the Administrative Litigation Act. So far, in theoretical perspective, scholars have already proposed that living creatures, administrative organizations, NGO groups, and procurator’s Yuan are the 4 possible qualified plaintiffs. In practice, although the system has not yet been fully standardized, different provinces have many ruled cases as references. The courts rarely expatiate the plaintiffs’ qualifications (some cases are simply denied), the representative ruled cases still have triggered extensive discussions. As a result, the consequent effects and the development of the future system are the main focus of this thesis.
显示于类别:	[法律與政府研究所] 博碩士論文

文件中的档案:

档案	描述	大小	格式	浏览次数
index.html		0Kb	HTML	1325	检视/开启

在NCUIR中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.

社群 sharing

数据加载中.....