查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 財產權保障與水源保護區之管理:德國法的比較=Constitutional Property Right and the Regulation of Watershed Protection Area: A Comparative Study of the German Constitution and Water Laws |
---|---|
作 者 | 黃錦堂; | 書刊名 | 國立臺灣大學法學論叢 |
卷 期 | 37:3 2008.09[民97.09] |
頁 次 | 頁1-46 |
分類號 | 554.5 |
關鍵詞 | 財產權; 財產權的社會拘束性; 徵收; 財產權之內容與限制; 特別犧牲; 損失補償; 便宜性之衡平給付; 自來水法第12條之2; 回饋; 水源保護區; 自來水水質水量保護區; Property protection; Property right; Regulatory takings doctrine; Land use regulation; Special sacrifice; Compensation; Watershed; Restricted areas; Watershed management; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 從財產權的存續保障出發,水源保護區的範圍與區內土地使用限制程度,必須符合比例原則,立法者應採用各種避免或減緩衝擊的方法。於最後不得已而採行的土地使用限制,德國法從財產權的社會拘束性出發,一般不予損失補償,只有當個別當事人蒙受特別不利益構成難以期待負荷始該當例外;1986年聯邦水利法修改引入「便宜性之衡平給付」(Billigkeitsausgleich),其非源於憲法上之財產權保障之義務補償,而係立法者之裁量,給付的要件與額度得有政策彈性,但畢竟限於農業使用限制所造成之經濟上不利益。從憲法基本人權、基本國策與民生福利國原則之「所有權之社會拘束性」意涵出發,我國水源區管制也得建立義務補償與便宜補償之制度,兩者區分標準十分抽象,於解釋適用上不免發生不安定性;「原則不予補償」之確立以及法院能否有效承擔具體爭執時的認定責任,最具重要性。現行自來水法第12條以下之規定並未精密區分義務性補償、便宜性補償、回饋,甚且實際比重上不無偏向回饋,不無違反憲法財產權保障與大法官「特別犧牲補償」要求,也未必合於資源使用之效率性與效能性。 |
英文摘要 | This research aims to analyze the central issues on zoning and compensation of water supply watersheds in Taiwan, and that based on a comparative study of the German constitutional and water laws. The constitutional property-clause requires in first meaning, that the intervention of the state must stem from compelling governmental interests, and the instruments to be chosen must be necessary and narrowly tailored. This demands a review of the huge watershed area, all possible methods for deregulating in zoning should be taken into account. Drinking Water Act of Taiwan, especially § 11, when it is to be revised, should adopt this institution. Even though the land-using in watersheds is restricted to a lower-level than in average, It constitutes generally not a constitutional compensation, and that because of the nature of the land and the social restriction of property right. However, with the revision of The Federal Water Law in 1986, § 19 IV was adopted, which is not a property right-based compensation, but rather a discretional choice of the parliament. The interpretation of Drinking Water Act of Taiwan, especially § 12, 12-1 and 12-2, could be enlightened through the comparison. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。