| 摘要: | 環境事件本身具備擴散性及不確定性之特徵，使得受其影響之人往往也沒有那麼固定的範圍，這顯示了環境事件中利害關係人之認定方式可能有與傳統行政行為相異之處，換言之，環境行政訴訟中的訴訟權能問題有重行加以檢視之必要。本文選擇以撤銷訴訟為核心，探討我國與日本法制中的環境訴訟原告適格判斷基準，尤其是第三人原告部分。
多年來此一主題之相關文獻大致上仍以闡述發揮保護規範理論為主，間或有針對該理論之缺失作個案檢討。本論文則擬從更一般性的視角出發，先從私益、公益相互關係等法理基礎，反省第三人原告適格之源初意義，進而從相對人及第三人(利害關係相同或相反)兩個角度，重新定位環境事件訴權之學理基礎。本文認為，原告適格的深層法理，其實是在「放寬權利救濟機會」與「控制法院訴訟負擔」間拿捏平衡之問題，因此，本文初步贊同了少數學者提出的「基本權」及「重大而突出之影響」此類較新的判斷基準。接著，從各種類型之環境實務案例分析中，呈現保護規範理論在不同案例中的具體操作情形，也同時凸顯出過於拘泥於此一判斷基準可能帶來的侷限。在隨後的章節，以日本法制及環境訴訟之發展作為參照，進一步對照出我國環境訴訟第三人訴權確實存在保護不週之缺失。
最後，將上述章節作統整分析，指出當前基準與前述新基準之優劣異同，並呼籲我國法界慎重考慮此新基準在環境撤銷訴訟原告適格中的時代意義。
Environmental events themselves have the characteristics of proliferation and uncertainty, so that people affected by them often do not have such a fixed range, which shows that the identification method of stakeholders in environmental events may be different from traditional administrative actions. In other words, it is necessary to re-examine the litigation power issue in environmental administrative litigation. This article chooses to dismiss litigation as the core, discussing the criteria for judging the qualifications of plaintiffs in environmental litigation in my country and Japan, especially the third party plaintiffs.
For many years, the relevant literature on this subject has generally focused on expounding the theory of protective norms, and occasionally reviewed the deficiencies of the theory on a case-by-case basis. This thesis intends to proceed from a more general perspective, starting from the legal basis of private interests and the mutual relationship of public welfare, reflecting on the original meaning of the third party plaintiff’s qualifications, and then from the counterpart and the third party (the same or opposite interests). From this perspective, reposition the academic basis of environmental incident litigation rights. This article believes that the plaintiff’s indepth jurisprudence is actually a balance between "relaxing rights and remedies" and "controlling the burden of court litigation." Therefore, this article initially agrees with the "fundamental rights" and "major and prominent" proposed by a few scholars. The impact of this type of newer judgment criteria. Then, from the analysis of various types of environmental practice cases, the specific operating situations of the protection norm theory in different cases are presented, and at the same time, it also highlights the possible limitations of being too constrained to this criterion. In the following chapters, with reference to the development of the Japanese legal system and environmental litigation, it is further contrasted with the lack of protection of thirdparty litigation rights in environmental litigation in my country. Finally, the above chapters are integrated and analyzed, pointing out the similarities and differences between the current benchmark and the aforementioned new benchmark, and calling on the Chinese legal community to carefully consider the contemporary significance of this new benchmark in the suitability of environmental revocation litigation plaintiffs. |
