我國土地徵收與停止執行之研究-以兩個案為例;The Land Expropriation and the Suspension of Execution of Our Country: A Study on Two Cases

NCUIR > College of Hakka Studies > Graduate Institute of Law and Government > Electronic Thesis & Dissertation > Item 987654321/77076

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/77076

Title:	我國土地徵收與停止執行之研究-以兩個案為例;The Land Expropriation and the Suspension of Execution of Our Country: A Study on Two Cases
Authors:	許子豪;HSU, TZU-HAO
Contributors:	法律與政府研究所
Keywords:	土地徵收;停止執行;公益性;正當行政程序;比例原則;徵收補償
Date:	2018-08-21
Issue Date:	2018-08-31 13:54:41 (UTC+8)
Publisher:	國立中央大學
Abstract:	「土地徵收」乃國家因公共事業之需要，藉由公權力經由法定程序，取得人民之私有土地，侵害我國人民於憲法上之「居住自由」、「財產權」，且常因我國政府一違法土地徵收後即刻為行政執行，拆除土地所有權人於該地之房屋，導致土地所有權人縱提起訴訟而勝訴，而因無法成功聲請「停止執行」，形成無法回復損害之狀態，使得人民於憲法第16條之「訴訟權」之保障無法發揮作用。故本文即從憲法上基本權功能（如客觀面向中「組織暨程序保障」所發展之正當行政程序）、基本權事先保障（公益目的、比例原則）與事後保障（特別犧牲之補償）放射至現今土地徵收條例與行政訴訟法關於停止執行之部分，探討現今土地徵收條例與停止執行之缺失，並提出解決，其重點如下：一、關於憲法基本權之事先保障中所要求之「公益性」，土地徵收條例中仍為抽象不明，故應具體化其標準。二、關於憲法上基本權客觀面向中「組織暨程序保障」，土地徵收條例之正當行程序尚未完善，亦應完善。三、關於憲法基本權之事先保障中所須遵循之「比例原則」，土地徵收之方式之必要性，尚未貫徹，亦應明確其內容。四、關於憲法基本權之事後保障中特別犧牲理論之補償，目前土地徵收補償所採取之市價補償，尚未能夠符合憲法所保障。五、最後停止執行之採取，除能避免徵收所侵害之「居住自由」、「財產權」形成無法回復損害之狀態，亦可發揮訴訟權之保護作用，貫徹正當法律程序與比例原則。;Land expropriation means the acquisition of citizens’ private land based on the needs of the public utility of the country via the legal procedure of the public authority. Land expropriation is the infringement on the freedom of living and the rights of property, both endowed with by the Constitution. Moreover, with the fact that the administrative execution of demolishing citizens’ real estate and claiming their land comes right after illegal land expropriation of our country, the original land owners are thus made to file a law suit, which further causes the irreversible state of infringement even though they win, because they cannot apply for the suspension of execution. The Act. 16 of The Right of Instituting Legal Proceedings is consequently failed. Therefore, based on the basic rights of the Constitution (such as the administrative due process developed from The Organization and Procedure Protection in the objective perspective), the prior protection on the basic rights (the purpose of public welfare and proportionality) and post protection (the compensation for special sacrifice), and further broadening into the regulations on land expropriation and The Administrative Litigation Act on suspension of execution, the present paper aims to discuss the drawbacks of the current regulations of land expropriation and suspension of execution, and tries to put forward possible solutions. The points of the present paper are as follows: first, the meaning of public interest endowed in the Constitution remains rather vague in terms of The Land Expropriation Act, and requires the specification of its standards. Second, the administrative due process has yet to be well established in terms of The Organization and Procedure Protection in the Constitution in the objective perspective, and it requires to be well established. Third, the proportionality —the essentiality of how the land is to be expropriated —followed by the basic rights in the Constitution in terms of prior protection is not thoroughly practiced and requires to be specified. Fourth, the compensation adopted according to the market price is not protected under the Constitution in terms of the compensation of the post protection of special sacrifice theory. Fifth, the adaptation of the suspension of execution can bring out the protective effect of the rights of litigation and bring into the full practice of the appropriateness of legal procedures and proportionality in addition to avoiding the irreversible state of infringement on the freedom of living and rights of possessions because of the land expropriation.
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of Law and Government] Electronic Thesis & Dissertation

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
index.html		0Kb	HTML	329	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...