| Summary: | 碩士 === 東吳大學 === 法律學系 === 103 === Several judgments pertaining to Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) have drawn plenty of attention recent years, some of which are Houli Science Park of Central Science Park and Mirarmar Resort; however, the controversies concerning the above cases never cease to ensue even though the judgments have already been made, and Article 14 of Environmental Impact Assessment Law (“EIAL”, referred to as “The Article”) is the core of these controversies. The controversies related to The Article include but are not limited to whether The Article applies to the situation in which the verdict of EIA has been revoked by the court, and what exactly the term “permission of development”(“PD”) signifies in The Article stated above. Beside, as the verdict of EIA is bound to be revoked by the courts, what should be done to ensure the principle of legitimate expectation can be completely fulfilled?
EIA system of our country, especially when observed in accordance with The Article, indicates that our country has decided to highlight the importance of EIA, a conclusion which deviates from the original meaning of The Article---a bylaw as well as a pre-procedure that should be obeyed before any Verdicts of EIA, which the author of this essay considers to be a Verwaltungsakt, are granted. Consequently, the author points out that it would be feasible to apply the principle of legitimate expectation to Verdicts of EIA along with The Article.
Since Verdict of EIA is a Verwaltungsakt as stated above, will it be void when the courts rule that the PD be void? Debates over this issue have been taking place from time to time. The author of this essay believes that the scope of the principle of legitimate expectation would be overstretched as the courts in Taiwan currently limit the scope of The Article so as to protect the interest of those who believe PD. Also, this kind of interpretation would be defiant of the essence of the EIA law---to be independent and crucial. The Article applies whenever the Verdicts of EIA are confirmed illegal by the courts.
As to what the “PD” appearing in section 1 of The Article means, the author of this essay disagrees with the point of view by those who limit the scope of The Article to only one situation---forwarding documents of environmental development to the responsible institute, and the issuance of the permission has to be related to EIA law. This improper interpretation, according to the author of this essay, is seriously illogical as The Article would be absolutely nullified. At this point, our country having not yet amended specific procedures for specific development plans, it would be difficult to justify why the scope of The Article should be limited as the development plans are legally the same for now. While some may argue that development permission granted in accordance with the Code of the Ground Plans and Decisions made during construction of buildings should be excluded from the scope of The Article, the author of this essay speculates that the above interpretation contradicts the essence of EIA law---EIA is strongly indispensable to ensuing development permission procedures. On a case-by-case basis, the author of this essay concludes that it fulfills the EIA law to conceive The Article is applicable to any development permission required by the law to be granted after the procedure of EIA is done.
|
|---|
