都市計畫係對特定地區之重要設施作系統性之安排，對於地區之發展極為重要，行政機關於規劃都市計畫之過程中應遵守法定程序。而都市計畫相對於傳統條件式規範之法規，屬於目的性規範，立法者並未規定計畫應如何實現，行政機關享有計畫形成自由，然計畫形成自由仍然受到司法機關之監督。 傳統上都市計畫有違法對人民權利或法律上利益造成侵害時，人民往往必須等待具體行政處分作成後始得救濟，無法直接針對違法都市計畫提起訴訟，在釋字第742號解釋做成後，我國於行政訴訟法增訂都市計畫審查專章，使人民得及時針對違法都市計畫救濟，本文除介紹都市計畫審查程序專章之內容外，並探討關於原告及被告適格，以及都市計畫實質違法審查時適用之利益衡量原則，於實務上都市計畫訴訟之運作情形，最後本文將提出修法及實務運作上之建議，期望有利我國都市計畫審查程序未來之發展。 ;Urban planning involves the systematic arrangement of essential facilities within specific areas and plays a crucial role in regional development. In the process of formulating urban plans, administrative authorities must comply with legally prescribed procedures. Unlike traditional conditional regulatory norms, urban plans are purposive regulations; the legislature does not prescribe how such plans should be implemented, thereby granting administrative agencies a certain degree of discretion in their formulation. However, this planning discretion remains subject to judicial oversight. Traditionally, when urban plans were unlawful and infringed upon individual rights or legally protected interests, affected individuals could only seek relief after a concrete administrative act was issued. Direct challenges against unlawful urban plans were not permitted. However, following Constitutional Interpretation No. 742, the Administrative Litigation Act was amended to include a special chapter on the review of urban plans, enabling timely legal remedies against unlawful plans. This article introduces the content of the newly established review procedures, examines issues regarding standing of plaintiffs and defendants, and analyzes the principle of interest balancing applied in substantive judicial review of urban plans. The article further explores how urban planning litigation operates in practice and concludes with legislative and practical recommendations to enhance the development of urban plan review procedures in Taiwan.
