本論文以釋字774號為例，探討都市計劃個別變更鄰人的權利救濟，包括事前的程序參與到事後的訴訟權保障，討論都市計畫法制上的問題，試圖找出符合我國國情的解決之道。 依都市計畫法第27條第1項進行的都市計畫個案變更，實務上最為大宗且爭議案件最多，釋字774號解釋聲請原因案件澄清醫院案頗具代表性。該號解釋文揭示「都市計畫個別變更範圍外之人民，如因都市計畫個別變更致其權利或法律上利益受侵害」仍可受到救濟，補充了釋字156號解釋「一定區域內人民」之解釋。行政計畫本身有多種之階段，各階段處於流動的過程，為保障人民權益，釋憲者遂不斷的擴增救濟大門，使得民眾損失的權益有得到憲法上訴訟權保障之可能。這樣的作法是否妥當，有待探討。另外，釋字774號未處理鄰人事前程序參與的保障，此乃鄰人權利救濟重要的一環，亦為本研究論文研究探討之範疇。行政訴訟法「都市計畫審查程序」部分草案與本研究相關部分，也一併納入探討範圍。 ;This study explores the implacations of Interpretation No. 774, and highlights legal remedies of neighbors challenging the individual zoning change, including the procedural standing to participate and material standing. This study tries to work out solutions more fit for the national situations of urban planning.
Article 27, Paragraph 1 of Urban Planning Law provides changes to urban plans under specific circumstances, around which most major controversies resulting from individual zoning changes revolve. Interpretation No. 774 regarding Chen Ching Hospital urban planning change was one of the typical cases. Interpretation No. 774 ruleed that, Legal remedies may be open to "individuals outside the designated scope of individual zoning change, if their rights or legal interests are infringed upon." This interpretation constitutes an obvious distinction to Interpretation No. 156. Since a urban planning undergoes multiple stages, requiring various legal underpinnings. Whether the case by case evolutionary approach can responds satisfactorily to the regulatory challenges, deserves further investigation. Especially the procedural standing issue, which Interpretation No. 774 left undiscussed, will be scrutinized. The draft of “Urban Plan Review Procedure” are also analysed regarding the remedies of neighbors challenging the individual zoning change.
Keywords: urban planning, individual zoning change, theory of protective norms, process for granting planning permission, legal remedy, Interpretation No. 774, Interpretation No. 156
