| Summary: | 碩士 === 東吳大學 === 法律學系 === 102 === Abstract
The illegal buildings are unable to be registered for property by Regulations of The Land Registration,so that lack of its publication and credibility of real rights.So the governmental agency is very difficult to verify the illegal building owner at the time of administrative sanctions. In order to solve this problem,the administrative sanctions are served by post on the practice. But the illegal building owner will advocate his rights through a process of the City Council coordination, block the illegal building demolished.And then it also had a subsequent controversies of charges from the cost of demolition and removal of residues.
The original owner, the assignee and any third party of illegal buildings are not allowed to claim their civil rights such as protection of bona fide assignee, while removing the risk of the administrative mandatory demolition.But the administrative mandatory demolition still shall comply with the statutory procedures, such as statements before sanction, administrative sanctions served, restrict the term to tell before demolition. And by the existing illegal building control relevant regulations,there is different way of control between old, presented and new illegal building. there is different way of treatment such as photographed to manage, photographed to deposit and punished to demolish because of different types and scale of illegal building. Induced some people file an administrative remedy application to halt administrative execution. At the same time, the Councilors block illegal buildings demolished through a process of the City Council coordination and other ways. Therefore illegal building control procedures should be more in line with the rules, to respond to a variety of questions and challenges.
Demolition as the only and major way of illegal building control seems simple but complex.Therefore this article is through a study on the legal procedures of illegal building control to consider whether the current control is consistent with due process. And from experiences in handling public petitions and council coordination,we are able to discuss whether claims of civil law included flexibility in considering to ease mandatory demolition of public power implementation. The order of demolition of illegal buildings should be given the more delicate and transparent benchmarks of discretion. For example construction, nature and scale of violations, the possible external impacts of the illegal building locations, Severity of endangering public security, or public transportation and so on. We hope it could become the reference for Taipei city goverment when sets out the relevant illegal building control regulations and procedures. We expect to complete and implement procedures, reduce resistance and improve execution performance.
|
|---|
