| Summary: | 碩士 === 東吳大學 === 法律學系 === 103 === The research is to study the necessity and the approach to apply invalidation to the Public Interest Proceedings on R.O.C. Environmental Impact Assessment Act. It collects, selects, and classifies the legal cases pleading on the Act, via the plaintiff’s standing and claim, to tell how the administrative courts recognize the administrative-proceeding type(s) of Public Interest Proceedings on the Act. It is found that, with grammatical interpretation, most courts confine the objects of “execution” of §23 VIII, IX of the Act to be administrative acts or administrative factual action, and accordingly restrict the types to be “Actions to Order Administrative Acts” or “Actions for General Payment.” However, the reductive interpretation of the regulation ends in serious problems of judicial relief, such as the incompleteness and the ineffectiveness of right protection.
To realize the application of the lawsuits, filing by environmental groups, for environmental interest in the USA and Germany, the study investigates each judicial practice, and finds: (1) The U.S. supreme court requires the plaintiff group to claim the correlation of interests between its member and the specific governmental behavior; while in Germany the pre-recognized group could file a lawsuit without claiming any correlation of interests. So, the property of the former is private interest proceedings; while the later, the real public interest proceedings. (2) In the U.S. lawcourts, suits regarding NEPA environmental impact assessment affairs proceed and are heard, not with Citizen Suit regulations, but in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by means of general judicial process. Invalidation of some administrative decision occurs when the administrative agency violates procedural or substantial regulations. In Germany, the pre-recognized environmental groups are entitled to suit for statutory violations of environmental impact assessment process defined on the 2002 Federal Nature Protection Act (BNatSchGNeuregG) and the 2006 Environmental Administrative Relief Proceedings (Umwelt-Rechsbehelfsgesetz); and the invalidation of illegal exploitation permit is allowed, too.
According to the comparative law, and in order to accomplish the institutional purpose of Public Interest Proceedings, this study, via Interpretation Theory and Legislative Theory separately, endows theoretical basis and provides legislative proposals to apply invalidation to the litigations regarding the Public Interest Proceedings on the Environmental Impact Assessment Act.
|
|---|
