| dc.contributor | 法學院 | en_US |
| dc.creator (作者) | 傅玲靜 | zh_TW |
| dc.date (日期) | 2010.06 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 12-Jun-2014 11:20:04 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 12-Jun-2014 11:20:04 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 12-Jun-2014 11:20:04 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/66681 | - |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 相較於美國及德國之法制，我國環評法第十四條第一項環評審查結論之效力規定，為相當特殊之法制設計，一般稱之為環評主管機關對於開發行為之「否決權」。然而於目前我國法學文獻中，鮮少對此一特殊制度進行較深入的論述。本文主要論點，在以通說認為環評審查結論為行政處分之基礎下，分別由程序及實體之觀點，觀察環評審查結論與開發行為許可之關係。在程序上，環評審查結論既為行政處分，環評主管機關作成之環評審查結論與目的事業主管機關作成之開發行為許可，皆為對於同一開發行為作成之行政處分，二者具有內容上之關聯性，且效力上因否決效力之規定（環評法第十四條第一項）而息息相關，環評審查程序與後續之開發行為許可程序構成階段性之關係。在實體上，參酌德國環評法中行政機關於作成先行裁決時對於開發行為所為之「暫時性積極整體判斷」，以及德國環評法第十三條第一項第二句關於暫時性整體判斷之規定，後續之處分及整體開發行為之許可應尊重此判斷之相關見解，本文嘗試提出以「整體判斷」之觀點，論證環評法第十四條規定之內涵。環評主管機關於作成環評審查結論時，對於開發行為整體之判斷，為連結環評審查結論與開發行為許可間不可或缺之重要關鍵。一旦此重要樞紐不存在，無論係因環評審查結論自始未通過，抑或嗣後由行政機關自行撤銷或行政法院判決撤銷確定，環評審查程序與開發行為許可程序間之階段性關係即不存在。此時，後階段程序中之開發行為許可依環評法第十四條第一項規定而無效，即表徵了環評審查結論對於開發行為之否決效力。本文之論證，係於現行法制下提出一個觀察環評法第十四條的角度。然而在立法政策上，相較於美國及德國等法制，我國法中環評審查結論對於開發許可具有否決效力之特殊制度，備受爭議，法制上應否繼續維持，本文建議仍宜藉由環評法之修法重新加以全面檢視。 | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | Compared with the American and German law system, Article 14 Environmental Impact Assessment Act （EIA Act） in Taiwan represents an extraordinary regulation, which is called the veto right of the environmental agency to a project. This essay refers particularly to the relationship between the EIA and the permission of a project from the procedural and material legal opinions. Based on the opinion that the result of the EIA as an administrative act （Verwaltungsakt）, the procedural relationship between the procedures of the EIA of the environmental agency and the project permission of the specific agency is therefore graded. Both of the EIA and the project permission are official decisions over the same project and have a close relationship, which considers their contents and legal effect. Materially, the provisional total judgment over a project （Article 13 EIA Act of Germany） will be examined particularly in this essay. Therefore, the total judgment of the environmental agency over a project during the EIA plays an indispensable chain between the result of the EIA and a total project permission. If the chain is missing, the graded procedural relationship will not be existed. Consequently, the project permission will become void after Article 14 EIA act in Taiwan. The Arguments about the veto right of Article 14 EIA act in Taiwan in this essay is on the basis of the valid legal system. However, the veto right of the environmental agency is disputed. The author suggests that, along with the reconstruction of the EIA act, the amendment of the veto right should be cautiously considered in the future. | en_US |
| dc.format.extent | 109 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | text/html | - |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 興大法學, 7, 209-273 | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 環境影響評估;開發許可;暫時性整體判斷;行政程序平行進行;階段式行政程序;多階段行政程序;否決權 | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Environmental Impact Assessment;Project Permission;Provisional Total Judgment;Principle of the Procedural Parallelism;Graded Administrative Procedure;Multi-leveled Procedure;Veto Right of the Environmental Agency | en_US |
| dc.title (題名) | 論環境影響評估審查與開發行為許可間之關係－由德國法「暫時性整體判斷」之觀點出發 | zh_TW |
| dc.type (資料類型) | article | en |
