以計畫與徵收之關係談先行區段徵收制度之合憲性問題－以新設都市地區實施開發建設為中心－

Constitutional Issues Regarding "Zone Expropriation in Advance" through Examining the Relationship between Urban Planning and Expropriation: Focused on "Newly Established Urban Area Undergoing Development and Construction"

李明芝(Lee, Ming-Chih)

先行區段徵收 ； 都市計畫 ； 計畫公益 ； 徵收公益 ； 日本土地收用法 ； 日本都市計畫法 ； 日本都市計畫事業 ； Zone Expropriation in Advance ； Urban Planning ； the Public Interests of Urban Planning ； The Public Interests of Expropriation ； Japan's Expropriation of Land Act ； Japan's City Planning Law ； Japan's Urban Redevelopment Projects

輔仁法學

67期（2024 / 06 / 01）

93 - 165

繁體中文;英文

本文聚焦以「新設都市地區實施開發建設」為由之「先行區段徵收制度」，並以區段徵收與都市計畫之關係為中心，討論：（1）此類型區段徵收制度的徵收公益為何？是否來自都市計畫？（2）應如何在徵收個案審查中看待計畫與徵收之間之關係？先行區段徵收制度是否違反憲法對徵收應合於最嚴謹程序之要求？本文先探究先行區段徵收制度之起源與變遷，並檢視先行區段徵收制度中都市計畫與區段徵收之關係；又日本法就計畫公益與徵收公益差異之研究成果，可提供我國另一視角，因此本文接續討論日本法中計畫與徵收之關係；最後試圖從計畫與徵收論檢視我國先行區段徵收之合憲性問題。基於上開討論，本文認為計畫公益與徵收公益不同，並指出：（1）以「新設都市地區實施開發建設」為區段徵收之發動原因，無論是新設都市地區或都市計畫皆難以成為徵收公益而為剝奪人民財產權之理由，而先行區段徵收竟進一步在都市計畫尚未完全確定時就先進行徵收，更不具正當性；（2）計畫公益雖不等同於徵收公益，但與計畫合致性之要求應作為徵收程序之合法性要件之一，先行區段徵收僅因行政便利性為理由而排除都市計畫法第52條之適用，可能違反憲法對徵收應合於最嚴謹程序之要求。

In Taiwan's past, there have been many cases of "zone expropriation in advance", ostensibly for the needs of newly established urban areas. The legislation permitting these seizures of property can be found in Article 4, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Land Expropriation Act in Taiwan. The term "zone expropriation in advance" refers to government seizures of property prior to the formal announcement and implementation of urban planning. This article focuses on the "zone expropriation in advance" based on "newly established urban area undergoing development and construction" with a central emphasis on the relationship between zone expropriation and urban planning. The discussion includes the following points: (1) What is the public interests in this type of zone expropriation system, and does it originate from urban planning? (2) How should the relationship between planning and expropriation be considered in the examination of expropriation cases? Does the "zone expropriation in advance" violate the constitutional requirement that expropriation should adhere to the most rigorous procedures? This paper first explores the origin and changes of the "zone expropriation in advance", and examines the relationship between urban planning and zone expropriation in the system of "zone expropriation in advance"; then discusses Japan's urban planning and expropriation theory which can provide another perspective for discussing the difference of public interests between urban planning and expropriation; finally, this paper tries to examine the problems of "zone expropriation in advance". Based on the above discussion, this paper considers that the public interests of urban planning is different from the public interests of expropriation, and puts forward the following problems about "zone expropriation in advance": (1) Using "newly established urban area undergoing development and construction" as the rationale for initiating zone expropriation is difficult to justify the deprivation of people's property rights as a legitimate reason for expropriation, whether in newly established urban areas or urban planning. Moreover, "zone expropriation in advance" implemented before the full determination of urban planning, lacks legitimacy; (2) While the public interests of urban planning cannot serve as the public interests of expropriation, the consistency with the urban planning can be one of the elements for the legality of expropriation. Therefore, "zone expropriation in advance" may violate the constitutional requirement that expropriation should follow the strictest procedures.