English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 26988/38789
Visitors : 2344727      Online Users : 28
RC Version 4.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Adv. Search
LoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ntour.ntou.edu.tw:8080/ir/handle/987654321/52174

Title: 從憲法財產權保障論捷運設施毗鄰地區土地徵收
Authors: Cheng, Chin-Wen
鄭景文
Contributors: NTOU:Institute of the Law of the Sea
國立臺灣海洋大學:海洋法律研究所
Keywords: 土地徵收;財產權保障;聯合開發;公共利益;大眾捷運系統
Land Expropriation;Property Protection;Joint Development;Public Interest;MRT
Date: 2017
Issue Date: 2019-05-23T06:24:35Z
Abstract: 憲法最重要的內容在於保障人民基本權利。然而,基本權利並非受到絕對的保障,國家在合乎憲法第23條的情形下可以限制之。 土地徵收係基於國家興辦公用事業之需要不得不然之措施。惟徵收行為係對人民基本權高度侵害之行政處分,不僅影響人民之財產,對部分以土地賴以為生之民眾(例如農民)而言,甚至侵犯其工作權與生存權。 鑒於國家徵收措施發動頻繁,特別是「公私協力」類型的徵收案件,亦即有益於私人之徵收態樣,此類徵收案其精神主要係透過私人間接達成公共利益,然而恐成為私人假借公益之名而圖私利之實的工具,因此對公共利益之要求為何?應有加以檢討之必要。 司法院大法官釋字第732號解釋文,針對大眾捷運用地之毗鄰地或聯合開發地之徵收以後,再移轉給私人的法規宣告違憲,係大法官首次處理「有利於私人之徵收」類型之案件。本文嘗試以憲法財產權之角度切入,從「徵收公益性問題」及「徵收之必要性問題」,探討土地徵收對於土地所有權人財產權或居住自由權之侵害,再針對司法院大法官釋字732號解釋文之論理依據,提出本文之看法。 本研究之結論認為,一、基於財產權保障而言,土地徵收是對於土地所有權人財產權之剝奪;二、土地徵收制度確實有存在必要,惟在使用時必須嚴格審查手段之必要性;三、對於公共利益之要求宜有更高之標準,並建議一、針對徵收之公益性、必要性建立ㄧ可遵循之操作準則;二、「興辦事業之公益性與必要性」與「徵收之公益性與必要性」應予區分;三、民眾參與機制應予確立與保障;四、應落實實質協議價購程序。
The most important content of the Constitution is to protect the fundamental rights of the people. The fundamental right is not subject to absolute guarantees and may be restricted by the State in the context of article 23 of the Constitution. Land must be requisitioned for the needs of the state to set up public utilities. However, the Land acquisition act is an administrative act that infringes upon the people's fundamental rights. It not only affects the people's property, but also violates their right to work and subsistence for some people who depend on land for their livelihood (such as farmers). Because of the frequent launch of state levy measures, particularly the "public-private partnership" type of levy, which is beneficial to the private collection of the case, the spirit of such cases mainly through private indirect public interest, but fear of private charity what is the demand for the public interest? According to the Interpretation of the Supreme Court of Justice Interpretation No. 732, when the Chief Justice declared the expropriation of the adjoining land or joint development site of the Mass Rapid Transit site, it is unconstitutional to transfer to the private regulations. It’s first time when Chief Justice "is conducive to private collection" types of cases. This paper tries to discuss the impact of land expropriation on property rights or freedom of residence of landowners from the angle of "constitutional property rights" and from "public welfare problems" and "necessity of expropriation", and then to Justice Judge Explain the rationale of the text, put forward the views of this article. First, based on the protection of property rights, land expropriation is for the landowners the deprivation of property rights. Second, the land expropriation system is indeed necessary, but must be strictly examined. Third, Land acquisition needs higher standards of public interest. We recommend: First, we should establish operational guidelines for principle of proportion and public interest. Second we should distinguish between planning stage and Land acquisition stage. Third, we should protect public participation mechanisms. Fourth, the government should fully consult with the people about the land purchase.
URI: http://ethesys.lib.ntou.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=G0040246102.id
http://ntour.ntou.edu.tw:8080/ir/handle/987654321/52174
Appears in Collections:[海洋法律研究所] 博碩士論文

Files in This Item:

There are no files associated with this item.



All items in NTOUR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

 


著作權政策宣告: 本網站之內容為國立臺灣海洋大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,請合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。
網站維護: 海大圖資處 圖書系統組
DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback