重要實務
【高雄-帝謙法律事務所/土地重要實務(41)】行政法院關於土地徵收補償費未於法定期間內發給，徵收處分無從溯及失效之決議，是否違憲？
2014.4.15 高雄律師-楊岡儒律師
發文單位： 司法院
解釋字號： 釋字第 516 號
解釋日期： 民國 89 年 10 月 26 日
解釋爭點：
行政法院關於土地徵收補償費未於法定期間內發給，徵收處分無從溯及失效之決議，是否違憲？
資料來源：
司法院公報 第 42 卷 12 期 62-69 頁
司法院大法官解釋（十三）（99年5月版）第 516-528 頁
總統府公報 第 6370 號 25-35 頁
相關法條：
中華民國憲法 第 15 條 ( 36.01.01 )
土地法 第 227、233、235、237 條 ( 89.01.26 )
土地徵收條例 第 22 條 ( 89.02.02 )
解 釋 文：
國家因公用或其他公益目的之必要，雖得依法徵收人民之財產，但應給予合理之補償。此項補償乃因財產之徵收，對被徵收財產之所有人而言，係為公共利益所受之特別犧牲，國家自應予以補償，以填補其財產權被剝奪或其權能受限制之損失。故補償不僅需相當，更應儘速發給，方符憲法第十五條規定，人民財產權應予保障之意旨。準此，土地法第二百三十三條明定，徵收土地補償之地價及其他補償費，應於「公告期滿後十五日內」發給。此項法定期間，雖或因對徵收補償有異議，由該管地政機關提交評定或評議而得展延，然補償費額經評定或評議後，主管地政機關仍應即行通知需用土地人，並限期繳交轉發土地所有權人，其期限亦不得超過土地法上述規定之十五日 (本院院字第二七○四號、釋字第一一○號解釋參照 )。倘若應增加補償之數額過於龐大，應動支預備金，或有其他特殊情事，致未能於十五日內發給者，仍應於評定或評議結果確定之日起於相當之期限內儘速發給之，否則徵收土地核准案，即應失其效力。行政法院八十五年一月十七日庭長評事聯席會議決議略謂：司法院釋字第一一○號解釋第三項，固謂徵收土地補償費額經標準地價評議委員會評定後，主管機關通知並轉發土地所有權人，不得超過土地法第二百三十三條所規定之十五日期限，然縱已逾十五日期限，無從使已確定之徵收處分溯及發生失其效力之結果云云，其與本解釋意旨不符部分，於憲法保障人民財產權之旨意有違，應不予適用。
理 由 書：
憲法第十五條規定，人民之財產權應予保障。此一規定旨在確保個人依財產之存續狀態，行使其自由使用、收益及處分之權能，並免於遭受公權力或第三人之侵害。國家因公用或因其他公益目的之必要，雖得依法徵收人民之財產，但應給予合理之補償。此項補償乃係因財產徵收，對被徵收財產之所有人而言，係為公共利益所受之特別犧牲，國家自應予以補償，以填補其財產權被剝奪或其權能受限制之損失。故補償不僅需相當，為減少財產所有人之損害，更應儘速發給，方符憲法上開保障人民財產權之意旨 (本院釋字第四○○號、第四二五號解釋參照 )。準此，土地法第二百三十三條前段規定：「徵收土地應補償之地價及其他補償費，應於公告期滿後十五日內發給之。」此項期間雖或因對徵收補償有異議，經該管地政機關提交評定或評議而得展延，但補償費額一經評定或評議後，主管地政機關仍應即行通知需用土地人，並限期繳交，以轉發應受補償人，其期限亦不得超過土地法第二百三十三條規定之十五日 (本院院字第二七○四號、釋字第一一○號解釋參照 )。上述徵收程序之嚴格要求，乃在貫徹國家因增進公共利益為公用徵收時，亦應兼顧確保人民財產權益之憲法意旨 (本院釋字第四○九號解釋意旨參照 )。對於土地法第二百二十七條所公告，被徵收土地應補償之費額，應受補償人有異議，而拒絕受領，依土地法第二百三十七條第一項第一款規定，得將款額提存之，但該項應補償之費額，如於提交評定或評議後，認應增加給付時，應增加發給之補償數額，倘未經依法發給，徵收處分即不得謂已因辦理上述提存而不影響其效力。此為有徵收即有補償，補償之發給與徵收土地核准處分之效力間，具有不可分之一體性所必然。觀諸土地法第二百三十五條前段規定，「被徵收土地之所有權人，對於其土地之權利義務，於應受補償發給完竣時終止」亦明。至若應增加補償之數額過於龐大，需用土地人 (機關 )需動支預備金支應，或有其他特殊情事，致未能於十五日內發給者，仍應於評定或評議結果確定之日起於相當之期限內儘速發給之 (依民國八十九年二月二日公布之土地徵收條例第二十二條第四項為三個月 )，否則徵收土地核准案，即應失其效力。行政法院八十五年一月十七日庭長評事聯席會議決議略謂：司法院釋字第一一○號解釋第三項，固謂徵收土地補償費額經標準地價評議委員會評定後，主管機關通知並轉發土地所有權人，不得超過土地法第二百三十三條所規定之十五日期限，然縱已逾十五日期限，無從使已確定之徵收處分溯及發生失其效力之結果云云，其與本解釋意旨不符部分，於憲法保障人民財產權之旨意有違，應不予適用。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 516
Date 2000.10.26
Issue
Interpretation No. 110 states that a disposition of eminent domain should not be invalidated retroactively due to the government authority’s failure to pay the compensation, including the amount added by the committee resolution in the objection procedures, within the time limit prescribed by the Land Act. Does the said Interpretation contradict Article 15 of the Constitution, which protects the people’s property rights?
Holding
Although the State may expropriate the people’s property according to the law when it is necessary for the purpose of public use or other public interests, fair compensation shall be given. This compensation is due to the expropriation of property. For owners of expropriated property, this is a specific sacrifice for public interests, and the State shall compensate for the loss with regard to the deprivation of property or the constraint on rights. Hence, in light of the purpose of Article 15 of the Constitution to protect the property rights of the people, compensation shall not only be fair, but also be prompt. Accordingly, Article 233 of the Land Act provides that land price and other compensation due to the expropriation of land shall be given no later than “fifteen days after expiration of the period of public disclosure.” Although this statutory period may be extended upon the land authority’s presentation of the case to the committee for resolution, due to objection on the compensation for expropriation, the authority shall notify the government agency in need of the land immediately after the amount of compensation is determined by resolution, and pay the compensation to the landowner within a period not exceeding 15 days as provided in the Land Act (See Interpretation Yuan-tze No. 2704 and Interpretation No. 110). In the event the compensation is increased by an enormous amount, requiring the expenditure of the reserve fund, or that there are other special circumstances leading to the inability to pay the compensation within fifteen days, the compensation shall still be paid within a reasonable period of time after the date of confirmation of such committee resolution. Otherwise, the approval of the eminent domain shall no longer be in effect. The Resolution of the Administrative Court Joint Convention (January 17, 1996) states the following: Interpretation No. 110, Paragraph 3, provides that after the amount of compensation for expropriation of land is determined by the Standard Land Price Review Committee, the notification and payment of the compensation to the landowner by the competent authority shall not exceed the fifteen-day period as provided by Article 233 of the Land Act; nevertheless, even if it exceeds the 15-day period, the confirmed expropriation disposition could not become invalid retroactively. The portion of the abovementioned Resolution, which is inconsistent with this Interpretation and is in violation of the purpose of constitutional protection of the people’s property rights, shall no longer be applicable.
Reasoning
Article 15 of the Constitution provides that the people’s property rights shall be protected. Its objective is to safeguard individuals’ use, profit and disposition of the property according to its existing conditions, and against the infringement by governmental power or third persons. Although the State may expropriate the people’s property according to the law when it is necessary for the purpose of public use or other public interests, fair compensation shall be given. This compensation is due to the expropriation of property. For owners of expropriated property, this is a specific sacrifice for the public interest, and the State shall compensate for the loss with regard to the deprivation of property or the constraint on rights. Hence, in light of the purpose of the Constitution to protect the property rights of the people (See Interpretations Nos. 400 and 425), compensations shall not only be fair, but also be prompt in order to minimize the loss to the owner of the property. Accordingly, the first sentence of Article 233 of the Land Act provides that “land price and other compensation due to the expropriation of land shall be given no later than fifteen days after expiration of the period of public disclosure.” Although this statutory period may be extended upon the land authority’s presentation of the case to the committee for resolution, due to objection on the compensation for expropriation, the authority shall notify the government agency in need of the land immediately after the amount of compensation is determined by resolution, and pay the compensation to the landowner within a period not exceeding 15 days as provided in the Land Act (See Interpretation Yuan-tze No. 2704 and Interpretation No. 110). The strict requirement of the aforementioned expropriation proceedings is to enforce the constitutional principle to protect the people’s property rights when the State expropriates for public use in light of the public interest (See Interpretation No. 409). With respect to the publicly announced amount of compensation for expropriation of land as provided in Article 227 of the Land Act, the amount may be deposited according to Article 237, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1, when the recipient objects and refuses to accept the compensation. However, if the additional amount of compensation as determined by the committee’s resolution is not paid pursuant to the law, the expropriation disposition shall be invalidated despite the completion of the aforementioned deposit. In other words, whenever there is an expropriation, there shall be compensation. It necessarily follows that the payment of compensation and the validity of the approval disposition for eminent domain are integral and inseparable. This point can also be supported by the first sentence of Article 235 of the Land Act, which provides that: “The rights and duties of the landowner regarding the land being expropriated shall terminate at the completion of the payment of compensation.” In the event the compensation is increased by an enormous amount, requiring the expenditure of the reserve fund by the entity (the government agency) in need of the land, or that there are other special circumstances leading to the inability to pay the compensation within fifteen days, the compensation shall still be paid within a reasonable period of time after the date of confirmation of such committee resolution. (According to the Act of Eminent Domain, Article 22, Paragraph 4 (February 2, 2000), the period is 3 months.) Otherwise, the approval of eminent domain shall no longer be in effect. The Resolution of the Administrative Court Joint Convention (January 17, 1996) states the following: Interpretation No. 110, Paragraph 3, provides that after the amount of compensation for expropriation of land is determined by the Standard Land Price Review Committee, the notification and payment of the compensation to the landowner by the competent authority shall not exceed the fifteen-day period as provided by Article 233 of the Land Act; nevertheless, even if it exceeds the 15-day period, the confirmed expropriation disposition could not become invalid retroactively. The portion of the abovementioned Resolution, which is inconsistent with this Interpretation and is in violation of the purpose of constitutional protection of the people’s property rights, shall no longer be applicable.
' Translated by Pijan Wu.
解釋字號： 釋字第 516 號
解釋日期： 民國 89 年 10 月 26 日
解釋爭點：
行政法院關於土地徵收補償費未於法定期間內發給，徵收處分無從溯及失效之決議，是否違憲？
資料來源：
司法院公報 第 42 卷 12 期 62-69 頁
司法院大法官解釋（十三）（99年5月版）第 516-528 頁
總統府公報 第 6370 號 25-35 頁
相關法條：
中華民國憲法 第 15 條 ( 36.01.01 )
土地法 第 227、233、235、237 條 ( 89.01.26 )
土地徵收條例 第 22 條 ( 89.02.02 )
解 釋 文：
國家因公用或其他公益目的之必要，雖得依法徵收人民之財產，但應給予合理之補償。此項補償乃因財產之徵收，對被徵收財產之所有人而言，係為公共利益所受之特別犧牲，國家自應予以補償，以填補其財產權被剝奪或其權能受限制之損失。故補償不僅需相當，更應儘速發給，方符憲法第十五條規定，人民財產權應予保障之意旨。準此，土地法第二百三十三條明定，徵收土地補償之地價及其他補償費，應於「公告期滿後十五日內」發給。此項法定期間，雖或因對徵收補償有異議，由該管地政機關提交評定或評議而得展延，然補償費額經評定或評議後，主管地政機關仍應即行通知需用土地人，並限期繳交轉發土地所有權人，其期限亦不得超過土地法上述規定之十五日 (本院院字第二七○四號、釋字第一一○號解釋參照 )。倘若應增加補償之數額過於龐大，應動支預備金，或有其他特殊情事，致未能於十五日內發給者，仍應於評定或評議結果確定之日起於相當之期限內儘速發給之，否則徵收土地核准案，即應失其效力。行政法院八十五年一月十七日庭長評事聯席會議決議略謂：司法院釋字第一一○號解釋第三項，固謂徵收土地補償費額經標準地價評議委員會評定後，主管機關通知並轉發土地所有權人，不得超過土地法第二百三十三條所規定之十五日期限，然縱已逾十五日期限，無從使已確定之徵收處分溯及發生失其效力之結果云云，其與本解釋意旨不符部分，於憲法保障人民財產權之旨意有違，應不予適用。
理 由 書：
憲法第十五條規定，人民之財產權應予保障。此一規定旨在確保個人依財產之存續狀態，行使其自由使用、收益及處分之權能，並免於遭受公權力或第三人之侵害。國家因公用或因其他公益目的之必要，雖得依法徵收人民之財產，但應給予合理之補償。此項補償乃係因財產徵收，對被徵收財產之所有人而言，係為公共利益所受之特別犧牲，國家自應予以補償，以填補其財產權被剝奪或其權能受限制之損失。故補償不僅需相當，為減少財產所有人之損害，更應儘速發給，方符憲法上開保障人民財產權之意旨 (本院釋字第四○○號、第四二五號解釋參照 )。準此，土地法第二百三十三條前段規定：「徵收土地應補償之地價及其他補償費，應於公告期滿後十五日內發給之。」此項期間雖或因對徵收補償有異議，經該管地政機關提交評定或評議而得展延，但補償費額一經評定或評議後，主管地政機關仍應即行通知需用土地人，並限期繳交，以轉發應受補償人，其期限亦不得超過土地法第二百三十三條規定之十五日 (本院院字第二七○四號、釋字第一一○號解釋參照 )。上述徵收程序之嚴格要求，乃在貫徹國家因增進公共利益為公用徵收時，亦應兼顧確保人民財產權益之憲法意旨 (本院釋字第四○九號解釋意旨參照 )。對於土地法第二百二十七條所公告，被徵收土地應補償之費額，應受補償人有異議，而拒絕受領，依土地法第二百三十七條第一項第一款規定，得將款額提存之，但該項應補償之費額，如於提交評定或評議後，認應增加給付時，應增加發給之補償數額，倘未經依法發給，徵收處分即不得謂已因辦理上述提存而不影響其效力。此為有徵收即有補償，補償之發給與徵收土地核准處分之效力間，具有不可分之一體性所必然。觀諸土地法第二百三十五條前段規定，「被徵收土地之所有權人，對於其土地之權利義務，於應受補償發給完竣時終止」亦明。至若應增加補償之數額過於龐大，需用土地人 (機關 )需動支預備金支應，或有其他特殊情事，致未能於十五日內發給者，仍應於評定或評議結果確定之日起於相當之期限內儘速發給之 (依民國八十九年二月二日公布之土地徵收條例第二十二條第四項為三個月 )，否則徵收土地核准案，即應失其效力。行政法院八十五年一月十七日庭長評事聯席會議決議略謂：司法院釋字第一一○號解釋第三項，固謂徵收土地補償費額經標準地價評議委員會評定後，主管機關通知並轉發土地所有權人，不得超過土地法第二百三十三條所規定之十五日期限，然縱已逾十五日期限，無從使已確定之徵收處分溯及發生失其效力之結果云云，其與本解釋意旨不符部分，於憲法保障人民財產權之旨意有違，應不予適用。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 516
Date 2000.10.26
Issue
Interpretation No. 110 states that a disposition of eminent domain should not be invalidated retroactively due to the government authority’s failure to pay the compensation, including the amount added by the committee resolution in the objection procedures, within the time limit prescribed by the Land Act. Does the said Interpretation contradict Article 15 of the Constitution, which protects the people’s property rights?
Holding
Although the State may expropriate the people’s property according to the law when it is necessary for the purpose of public use or other public interests, fair compensation shall be given. This compensation is due to the expropriation of property. For owners of expropriated property, this is a specific sacrifice for public interests, and the State shall compensate for the loss with regard to the deprivation of property or the constraint on rights. Hence, in light of the purpose of Article 15 of the Constitution to protect the property rights of the people, compensation shall not only be fair, but also be prompt. Accordingly, Article 233 of the Land Act provides that land price and other compensation due to the expropriation of land shall be given no later than “fifteen days after expiration of the period of public disclosure.” Although this statutory period may be extended upon the land authority’s presentation of the case to the committee for resolution, due to objection on the compensation for expropriation, the authority shall notify the government agency in need of the land immediately after the amount of compensation is determined by resolution, and pay the compensation to the landowner within a period not exceeding 15 days as provided in the Land Act (See Interpretation Yuan-tze No. 2704 and Interpretation No. 110). In the event the compensation is increased by an enormous amount, requiring the expenditure of the reserve fund, or that there are other special circumstances leading to the inability to pay the compensation within fifteen days, the compensation shall still be paid within a reasonable period of time after the date of confirmation of such committee resolution. Otherwise, the approval of the eminent domain shall no longer be in effect. The Resolution of the Administrative Court Joint Convention (January 17, 1996) states the following: Interpretation No. 110, Paragraph 3, provides that after the amount of compensation for expropriation of land is determined by the Standard Land Price Review Committee, the notification and payment of the compensation to the landowner by the competent authority shall not exceed the fifteen-day period as provided by Article 233 of the Land Act; nevertheless, even if it exceeds the 15-day period, the confirmed expropriation disposition could not become invalid retroactively. The portion of the abovementioned Resolution, which is inconsistent with this Interpretation and is in violation of the purpose of constitutional protection of the people’s property rights, shall no longer be applicable.
Reasoning
Article 15 of the Constitution provides that the people’s property rights shall be protected. Its objective is to safeguard individuals’ use, profit and disposition of the property according to its existing conditions, and against the infringement by governmental power or third persons. Although the State may expropriate the people’s property according to the law when it is necessary for the purpose of public use or other public interests, fair compensation shall be given. This compensation is due to the expropriation of property. For owners of expropriated property, this is a specific sacrifice for the public interest, and the State shall compensate for the loss with regard to the deprivation of property or the constraint on rights. Hence, in light of the purpose of the Constitution to protect the property rights of the people (See Interpretations Nos. 400 and 425), compensations shall not only be fair, but also be prompt in order to minimize the loss to the owner of the property. Accordingly, the first sentence of Article 233 of the Land Act provides that “land price and other compensation due to the expropriation of land shall be given no later than fifteen days after expiration of the period of public disclosure.” Although this statutory period may be extended upon the land authority’s presentation of the case to the committee for resolution, due to objection on the compensation for expropriation, the authority shall notify the government agency in need of the land immediately after the amount of compensation is determined by resolution, and pay the compensation to the landowner within a period not exceeding 15 days as provided in the Land Act (See Interpretation Yuan-tze No. 2704 and Interpretation No. 110). The strict requirement of the aforementioned expropriation proceedings is to enforce the constitutional principle to protect the people’s property rights when the State expropriates for public use in light of the public interest (See Interpretation No. 409). With respect to the publicly announced amount of compensation for expropriation of land as provided in Article 227 of the Land Act, the amount may be deposited according to Article 237, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1, when the recipient objects and refuses to accept the compensation. However, if the additional amount of compensation as determined by the committee’s resolution is not paid pursuant to the law, the expropriation disposition shall be invalidated despite the completion of the aforementioned deposit. In other words, whenever there is an expropriation, there shall be compensation. It necessarily follows that the payment of compensation and the validity of the approval disposition for eminent domain are integral and inseparable. This point can also be supported by the first sentence of Article 235 of the Land Act, which provides that: “The rights and duties of the landowner regarding the land being expropriated shall terminate at the completion of the payment of compensation.” In the event the compensation is increased by an enormous amount, requiring the expenditure of the reserve fund by the entity (the government agency) in need of the land, or that there are other special circumstances leading to the inability to pay the compensation within fifteen days, the compensation shall still be paid within a reasonable period of time after the date of confirmation of such committee resolution. (According to the Act of Eminent Domain, Article 22, Paragraph 4 (February 2, 2000), the period is 3 months.) Otherwise, the approval of eminent domain shall no longer be in effect. The Resolution of the Administrative Court Joint Convention (January 17, 1996) states the following: Interpretation No. 110, Paragraph 3, provides that after the amount of compensation for expropriation of land is determined by the Standard Land Price Review Committee, the notification and payment of the compensation to the landowner by the competent authority shall not exceed the fifteen-day period as provided by Article 233 of the Land Act; nevertheless, even if it exceeds the 15-day period, the confirmed expropriation disposition could not become invalid retroactively. The portion of the abovementioned Resolution, which is inconsistent with this Interpretation and is in violation of the purpose of constitutional protection of the people’s property rights, shall no longer be applicable.
' Translated by Pijan Wu.
今日瀏覽人數：3651 總瀏覽人數：9717029
|
帝謙高雄法律事務所 | 關於高雄律師 | 高雄法律顧問 | 高雄律師服務項目 | 不動產律師 | 高雄律師專欄 | 高雄律師法律諮詢 | 高雄律師最新消息 | 聯絡高雄律師 |
|
電話：(07)558-9090 傳真：(07)558-9010 地址：813 高雄市左營區明華一路350號11樓之2  Copyright © 2013-2015 Deep-Change Law Firm, All Rights Reserved 網頁設計:uuTaiwan |
友情連結 |
帝謙法律事務所是國內專業的律師事務所，我們提供專業的法律諮詢、民事訴訟、刑事訴訟、行政訴訟訴願、保險理賠、撰寫存證信函、律師信函、不動產法律、遺產繼承規劃、常年法律顧問、契約撰擬…及其他法律專案，高雄律師團隊經驗豐富、辦案認真，積極處理並以同理心處理每個客戶所委託的案件。