重要實務
【高雄-帝謙法律事務所/土地重要實務(60)】土污法第 48 條使污染行為人就該法施行前發生施行後仍存之污染狀況負整治義務，違憲？
2014.4.29 高雄律師-楊岡儒律師
發文單位： 司法院
解釋字號： 釋字第 714 號
解釋日期： 民國 102 年 11 月 15 日
解釋爭點：
土污法第 48 條使污染行為人就該法施行前發生施行後仍存之污染狀況負整治義務，違憲？
資料來源：
司法院
司法周刊 第 1671 期 1 版
司法院公報 第 56 卷 1 期 10-128 頁
法令月刊 第 65 卷 1 期 136-137 頁
相關法條：
中華民國憲法 第 15、23 條 ( 36.01.01 )
中華民國憲法增修條文 第 10 條 ( 94.06.10 )
行政訴訟法 第 98、243、255、258 條 ( 102.01.09 )
司法院大法官審理案件法 第 5、8 條 ( 82.02.03 )
民法總則施行法 第 18 條 ( 97.05.23 )
國家賠償法 第 2 條 ( 69.07.02 )
公司法 第 75、319 條 ( 102.01.30 )
消費者保護法 第 7 條 ( 94.02.05 )
菸害防制法 第 8、21 條 ( 98.01.23 )
水污染防治法 第 32 條 ( 96.12.12 )
土壤及地下水污染整治法 第 2、7、12、13、16、17、18、20、31、32、34、36、41、48、52、53 條 ( 99.02.03 )
行政罰法 第 27 條 ( 100.11.23 )
行政程序法 第 5、6、8、111、131 條 ( 94.12.28 )
民法 第 280、1148 條 ( 91.06.26 )
民法 第 18、184、191-3、215、767、962 條 ( 101.12.26 )
中華民國刑法 第 1、2 條 ( 102.06.11 )
土地法 第 37-1 條 ( 78.12.29 )
公司法 第 75、319 條 ( 69.05.09 )
國營事業管理法 第 8 條 ( 91.06.19 )
土壤及地下水污染整治法 第 1、2、6、7、8、9、11、12、13、16、17、18、32、36、38、41、48 條 ( 89.02.02 )
土壤及地下水污染整治法 第 2、7、12、13、14、15、16、17、18、25、32、36、38、41、48 條 ( 92.01.08 )
廢棄物清理法 第 13、21、22 條 ( 63.07.26 )
廢棄物清理法 第 4、13、14、15、16、17、18、19 條 ( 93.06.02 )
廢棄物清理法臺灣省施行細則 第 3、18、20、22 條 ( 79.06.05 )
土壤及地下水污染控制場址初步評估辦法 第 2 條 ( 92.05.07 )
解 釋 文：
中華民國八十九年二月二日制定公布之土壤及地下水污染整治法第四十八條規定：「第七條、第十二條、第十三條、第十六條至第十八條、第三十二條、第三十六條、第三十八條及第四十一條之規定，於本法施行前已發生土壤或地下水污染之污染行為人適用之。」其中有關「於本法施行前已發生土壤或地下水污染之污染行為人適用之」部分，係對該法施行後，其污染狀況仍繼續存在之情形而為規範，尚未牴觸法律不溯及既往原則及憲法第二十三條之比例原則，與憲法第十五條保障人民工作權及財產權之意旨均無違背。
理 由 書：
八十九年二月二日制定公布之土壤及地下水污染整治法（下稱土污法）第四十八條規定：「第七條、第十二條、第十三條、第十六條至第十八條、第三十二條、第三十六條、第三十八條及第四十一條之規定，於本法施行前已發生土壤或地下水污染之污染行為人適用之。」（下稱系爭規定）所列規定係課污染行為人就土污法施行後仍繼續存在之污染狀況，有避免污染擴大及除去之整治等相關義務，以防止或減輕該污染對國民健康及環境之危害，並對違反土污法所定前述義務之處罰及強制執行。系爭規定將所列規定適用於本法施行前已發生土壤或地下水污染之污染行為人(下稱施行前之污染行為人)，使其就土污法施行後之污染狀況負整治義務等。其意旨僅在揭示前述整治義務以仍繼續存在之污染狀況為規範客體，不因污染之行為發生於土污法施行前或施行後而有所不同；反之，施行前終了之污染行為，如於施行後已無污染狀況，系爭規定則無適用之餘地，是尚難謂牴觸法律不溯及既往原則。且依土污法第二條第十二款規定：「污染行為人：指因有下列行為之一而造成土壤或地下水污染之人：（一）非法排放、洩漏、灌注或棄置污染物。（二）仲介或容許非法排放、洩漏、灌注或棄置污染物。（三）未依法令規定清理污染物。」該污染係由施行前之污染行為人之非法行為（例如六十三年七月二十六日制定公布之廢棄物清理法第十三條；六十四年五月二十一日訂定發布、九十一年二月一日廢止之同法臺灣省施行細則第十八條、第二十條規定）造成，亦無值得保護之信賴而須制定過渡條款或為其他合理補救措施之問題。
土壤及地下水之污染多肇因於農、工、商之執業或營業行為，系爭規定課土污法施行前之污染行為人就施行後仍繼續存在之污染狀況負整治、支付費用及停業、停工等義務，即屬對憲法第十五條所保障之人民工作權、財產權及其內涵之營業自由所為限制，自應符合憲法第二十三條之比例原則。
查土污法之制定，係為整治土壤及地下水污染，確保土地及地下水資源永續利用，改善生活環境，維護國民健康（土污法第一條參照）。系爭規定為妥善有效處理前述土壤或地下水污染問題，使土污法施行前發生而施行後仍繼續存在之污染問題可併予解決，俾能全面進行整治工作，避免污染繼續擴大，目的洵屬正當，且所採手段亦有助於上開目的之達成。
對施行前之污染行為人若不命其就現存污染狀況負整治責任，該污染狀況之危害，勢必由其他人或國家負擔，有違社會正義，並衝擊國家財政。是系爭規定明定施行前之污染行為人負整治責任，始足以妥善有效處理土壤及地下水污染問題，而又無其他侵害較小之手段可產生相同效果，自應認系爭規定係達成前述立法目的之必要手段。
土污法施行前發生之污染狀況於土污法施行後仍繼續存在者，將對國民健康及環境造成危害，須予以整治，方能妥善有效解決污染問題，以維公共利益。況施行前之污染行為人之污染行為原屬非法，在法律上本應負一定除去污染狀況之責任，系爭規定課予相關整治責任，而對其財產權等所為之限制，與所保護之公共利益間，並非顯失均衡。綜上，系爭規定尚未牴觸憲法第二十三條之比例原則，與憲法保障人民工作權、財產權及其內涵之營業自由之意旨均無違背。
依土污法第二條第十二款規定，污染行為人指為該款所列各目行為之人。是系爭規定係以為上開污染行為之行為人為規範對象。至污染行為人之概括繼受人是否承受其整治義務，非屬系爭規定之規範範疇，自亦不生系爭規定未區分污染行為人與概括繼受人之整治義務是否違反平等原則之問題，併此指明。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 714
Date 2013.11.15
Issue
Is Article 48 of the Soil and Underground Water Pollution Control Act which holds a polluter liable for pollution produced prior to the entry into force of the law and which has continued thereafter unconstitutional?
Holding
Article 48 of the Soil and Underground Water Pollution Control Act, promulgated on February 2, 2000, provides: “The provisions of Articles 7, 12, 13, 16 through 18, 32, 36, 38, and 41 are applicable to acts which pollute the soil and underground water occurring before the entry into force of this Act. The relevant part at issue “the provisions are applicable to acts which pollute the soil and underground water occurring before the entry into force of this Act” is a regulation aimed at contamination which persisted after enactment of the said Act. It does not violate the principle of prohibition against retroactive law, or the principle of proportionality stated in Article 23 of the Constitution, nor does it violate the intent of Article 15 of the Constitution guaranteeing people’s right to work and right to property.
Reasoning
Article 48 of the Soil and Underground Water Pollution Control Act (hereinafter called the Soil Pollution Act), promulgated on February 2, 2000, provides: “The provisions of Articles 7, 12, 13, 16 through 18, 32, 36, 38, and 41 are applicable to acts which pollute the soil and underground water occurring before the entry into force of this Act.” (hereafter called the provisions at issue). The provisions imposed a duty on the polluter to avoid spreading pollution and to clean up any contamination which persisted after the entry into force of the Soil Pollution Act, and prescribed penalties and enforcement measures for violating the abovementioned duty.
The provisions at issue were applicable to polluters whose acts of pollution of soil or underground water occurred prior to the entry into force of the Act (hereafter called a pre-Act polluter). Such polluters are deemed liable for post-Act contamination. The intent of these provisions was to prescribe, as the regulatory object, a duty to clean up continuing contamination. They did not intend to distinguish pollution which occurred before, from that which occurred after, implementation of the Soil Pollution Act. Indeed, if the pollution ended before the Act was implemented, and no more pollution occurred after the Act came into force, then the provisions at issue do not apply. Therefore, they cannot be said to have violated the principle of prohibition against retroactive law. Also, Article 2, Section 12 of the Soil Pollution Act provides: “ A polluter means a person who has caused soil or underground water contamination by acts described below: (1) unlawful discharge, leaks, pumping, or disposal of a contaminant; (2) acting as a conduit for or tolerating an unlawful discharge, leak, pumping, or disposal of a contaminant; (3) failure to clean up contamination as required by law. When the alleged contamination is attributable to unlawful acts undertaken by the polluter (for example, Article 13 of Waste Management Act promulgated on July 26, 1974, Article 18 and Article 26 of Taiwan Implemention Rules for the same Act promulgated on May 21, 1975, repealed on February 1, 2002), there is no need to make transitional regulations or take other reasonable remedial measures to protect legal reliability.
Most acts of soil and underground water pollution were caused by agricultural, industrial, or business operations. The provisions at issue imposed a duty on the pre-Act polluter to clean up, to pay for the clean-up, and to shut down operations, because contamination persisted after enactment of the Soil Pollution Act. This is a restriction on people’s right to work and right to property guaranteed by Article 15 of the Constitution, and a restriction on freedom to carry on business implicit in that Article. Therefore, the Act must be made to accord with the principle of proportionality set out in Article 23.
The purpose of the enactment of the Soil Pollution Act was to clean up soil and underground water contamination, to ensure the continued use of soil and underground water, to improve the living environment, and to protect public health (refer to Article 1 of the Soil Pollution Act). The provisions at issue are aimed at properly disposing of the abovementioned soil and underground water contamination, eliminating any contamination which existed before, and persisted after, the Act, carrying out a complete clean-up, whilst avoiding any spreading of the contamination. The Act has a proper purpose, and the means employed are helpful to achieving the end.
If we do not make a pre-Act polluter responsible for existing pollution, the damage will be born by others or by the nation. This offends social justice and affects national finances. Therefore, the provisions at issue make a pre-Act polluter responsible for the clean-up in order to properly resolve the issue of soil and underground water contamination. There being no other less restrictive means to attain the same effect, the provisions at issue shall be regarded as a necessary means to achieve the legislative purpose.
Pre-Act contamination persisting after the Act will jeopardize public health and the environment. Effective resolution of the issue of contamination is both necessary and in the public interest. The contamination caused by the pre-Act polluter was illegal. By law, the polluter was responsible to a certain degree for eliminating the contamination. The provisions at issue imposed a duty to clean-up, and placed certain restrictions on a polluter’s right to property. In comparison with the public interest protected, this is not evidently excessive. Overall, it does not violate the principle of proportionality stated in Article 23 of the Constitution, nor does it violate the intent of Article 15 of the Constitution guaranteeing people’s right to work and right to property.
According to Article 2, Section 12 of the Soil Pollution Act, a polluter is any person who commits acts listed in the law. Therefore, the provisions at issue take a person committing the abovementioned acts as the regulatory object. Whether an assignee of the polluter should assume the clean-up duty is not a question within the regulatory scheme of the provisions at issue. Therefore, there is no question as to whether the provisions at issue violate the principle of equality by failing to distinguish if the duty to clean-up falls on the polluter or an assignee.
Translated by Huai-Ching Tsai.
解釋字號： 釋字第 714 號
解釋日期： 民國 102 年 11 月 15 日
解釋爭點：
土污法第 48 條使污染行為人就該法施行前發生施行後仍存之污染狀況負整治義務，違憲？
資料來源：
司法院
司法周刊 第 1671 期 1 版
司法院公報 第 56 卷 1 期 10-128 頁
法令月刊 第 65 卷 1 期 136-137 頁
相關法條：
中華民國憲法 第 15、23 條 ( 36.01.01 )
中華民國憲法增修條文 第 10 條 ( 94.06.10 )
行政訴訟法 第 98、243、255、258 條 ( 102.01.09 )
司法院大法官審理案件法 第 5、8 條 ( 82.02.03 )
民法總則施行法 第 18 條 ( 97.05.23 )
國家賠償法 第 2 條 ( 69.07.02 )
公司法 第 75、319 條 ( 102.01.30 )
消費者保護法 第 7 條 ( 94.02.05 )
菸害防制法 第 8、21 條 ( 98.01.23 )
水污染防治法 第 32 條 ( 96.12.12 )
土壤及地下水污染整治法 第 2、7、12、13、16、17、18、20、31、32、34、36、41、48、52、53 條 ( 99.02.03 )
行政罰法 第 27 條 ( 100.11.23 )
行政程序法 第 5、6、8、111、131 條 ( 94.12.28 )
民法 第 280、1148 條 ( 91.06.26 )
民法 第 18、184、191-3、215、767、962 條 ( 101.12.26 )
中華民國刑法 第 1、2 條 ( 102.06.11 )
土地法 第 37-1 條 ( 78.12.29 )
公司法 第 75、319 條 ( 69.05.09 )
國營事業管理法 第 8 條 ( 91.06.19 )
土壤及地下水污染整治法 第 1、2、6、7、8、9、11、12、13、16、17、18、32、36、38、41、48 條 ( 89.02.02 )
土壤及地下水污染整治法 第 2、7、12、13、14、15、16、17、18、25、32、36、38、41、48 條 ( 92.01.08 )
廢棄物清理法 第 13、21、22 條 ( 63.07.26 )
廢棄物清理法 第 4、13、14、15、16、17、18、19 條 ( 93.06.02 )
廢棄物清理法臺灣省施行細則 第 3、18、20、22 條 ( 79.06.05 )
土壤及地下水污染控制場址初步評估辦法 第 2 條 ( 92.05.07 )
解 釋 文：
中華民國八十九年二月二日制定公布之土壤及地下水污染整治法第四十八條規定：「第七條、第十二條、第十三條、第十六條至第十八條、第三十二條、第三十六條、第三十八條及第四十一條之規定，於本法施行前已發生土壤或地下水污染之污染行為人適用之。」其中有關「於本法施行前已發生土壤或地下水污染之污染行為人適用之」部分，係對該法施行後，其污染狀況仍繼續存在之情形而為規範，尚未牴觸法律不溯及既往原則及憲法第二十三條之比例原則，與憲法第十五條保障人民工作權及財產權之意旨均無違背。
理 由 書：
八十九年二月二日制定公布之土壤及地下水污染整治法（下稱土污法）第四十八條規定：「第七條、第十二條、第十三條、第十六條至第十八條、第三十二條、第三十六條、第三十八條及第四十一條之規定，於本法施行前已發生土壤或地下水污染之污染行為人適用之。」（下稱系爭規定）所列規定係課污染行為人就土污法施行後仍繼續存在之污染狀況，有避免污染擴大及除去之整治等相關義務，以防止或減輕該污染對國民健康及環境之危害，並對違反土污法所定前述義務之處罰及強制執行。系爭規定將所列規定適用於本法施行前已發生土壤或地下水污染之污染行為人(下稱施行前之污染行為人)，使其就土污法施行後之污染狀況負整治義務等。其意旨僅在揭示前述整治義務以仍繼續存在之污染狀況為規範客體，不因污染之行為發生於土污法施行前或施行後而有所不同；反之，施行前終了之污染行為，如於施行後已無污染狀況，系爭規定則無適用之餘地，是尚難謂牴觸法律不溯及既往原則。且依土污法第二條第十二款規定：「污染行為人：指因有下列行為之一而造成土壤或地下水污染之人：（一）非法排放、洩漏、灌注或棄置污染物。（二）仲介或容許非法排放、洩漏、灌注或棄置污染物。（三）未依法令規定清理污染物。」該污染係由施行前之污染行為人之非法行為（例如六十三年七月二十六日制定公布之廢棄物清理法第十三條；六十四年五月二十一日訂定發布、九十一年二月一日廢止之同法臺灣省施行細則第十八條、第二十條規定）造成，亦無值得保護之信賴而須制定過渡條款或為其他合理補救措施之問題。
土壤及地下水之污染多肇因於農、工、商之執業或營業行為，系爭規定課土污法施行前之污染行為人就施行後仍繼續存在之污染狀況負整治、支付費用及停業、停工等義務，即屬對憲法第十五條所保障之人民工作權、財產權及其內涵之營業自由所為限制，自應符合憲法第二十三條之比例原則。
查土污法之制定，係為整治土壤及地下水污染，確保土地及地下水資源永續利用，改善生活環境，維護國民健康（土污法第一條參照）。系爭規定為妥善有效處理前述土壤或地下水污染問題，使土污法施行前發生而施行後仍繼續存在之污染問題可併予解決，俾能全面進行整治工作，避免污染繼續擴大，目的洵屬正當，且所採手段亦有助於上開目的之達成。
對施行前之污染行為人若不命其就現存污染狀況負整治責任，該污染狀況之危害，勢必由其他人或國家負擔，有違社會正義，並衝擊國家財政。是系爭規定明定施行前之污染行為人負整治責任，始足以妥善有效處理土壤及地下水污染問題，而又無其他侵害較小之手段可產生相同效果，自應認系爭規定係達成前述立法目的之必要手段。
土污法施行前發生之污染狀況於土污法施行後仍繼續存在者，將對國民健康及環境造成危害，須予以整治，方能妥善有效解決污染問題，以維公共利益。況施行前之污染行為人之污染行為原屬非法，在法律上本應負一定除去污染狀況之責任，系爭規定課予相關整治責任，而對其財產權等所為之限制，與所保護之公共利益間，並非顯失均衡。綜上，系爭規定尚未牴觸憲法第二十三條之比例原則，與憲法保障人民工作權、財產權及其內涵之營業自由之意旨均無違背。
依土污法第二條第十二款規定，污染行為人指為該款所列各目行為之人。是系爭規定係以為上開污染行為之行為人為規範對象。至污染行為人之概括繼受人是否承受其整治義務，非屬系爭規定之規範範疇，自亦不生系爭規定未區分污染行為人與概括繼受人之整治義務是否違反平等原則之問題，併此指明。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 714
Date 2013.11.15
Issue
Is Article 48 of the Soil and Underground Water Pollution Control Act which holds a polluter liable for pollution produced prior to the entry into force of the law and which has continued thereafter unconstitutional?
Holding
Article 48 of the Soil and Underground Water Pollution Control Act, promulgated on February 2, 2000, provides: “The provisions of Articles 7, 12, 13, 16 through 18, 32, 36, 38, and 41 are applicable to acts which pollute the soil and underground water occurring before the entry into force of this Act. The relevant part at issue “the provisions are applicable to acts which pollute the soil and underground water occurring before the entry into force of this Act” is a regulation aimed at contamination which persisted after enactment of the said Act. It does not violate the principle of prohibition against retroactive law, or the principle of proportionality stated in Article 23 of the Constitution, nor does it violate the intent of Article 15 of the Constitution guaranteeing people’s right to work and right to property.
Reasoning
Article 48 of the Soil and Underground Water Pollution Control Act (hereinafter called the Soil Pollution Act), promulgated on February 2, 2000, provides: “The provisions of Articles 7, 12, 13, 16 through 18, 32, 36, 38, and 41 are applicable to acts which pollute the soil and underground water occurring before the entry into force of this Act.” (hereafter called the provisions at issue). The provisions imposed a duty on the polluter to avoid spreading pollution and to clean up any contamination which persisted after the entry into force of the Soil Pollution Act, and prescribed penalties and enforcement measures for violating the abovementioned duty.
The provisions at issue were applicable to polluters whose acts of pollution of soil or underground water occurred prior to the entry into force of the Act (hereafter called a pre-Act polluter). Such polluters are deemed liable for post-Act contamination. The intent of these provisions was to prescribe, as the regulatory object, a duty to clean up continuing contamination. They did not intend to distinguish pollution which occurred before, from that which occurred after, implementation of the Soil Pollution Act. Indeed, if the pollution ended before the Act was implemented, and no more pollution occurred after the Act came into force, then the provisions at issue do not apply. Therefore, they cannot be said to have violated the principle of prohibition against retroactive law. Also, Article 2, Section 12 of the Soil Pollution Act provides: “ A polluter means a person who has caused soil or underground water contamination by acts described below: (1) unlawful discharge, leaks, pumping, or disposal of a contaminant; (2) acting as a conduit for or tolerating an unlawful discharge, leak, pumping, or disposal of a contaminant; (3) failure to clean up contamination as required by law. When the alleged contamination is attributable to unlawful acts undertaken by the polluter (for example, Article 13 of Waste Management Act promulgated on July 26, 1974, Article 18 and Article 26 of Taiwan Implemention Rules for the same Act promulgated on May 21, 1975, repealed on February 1, 2002), there is no need to make transitional regulations or take other reasonable remedial measures to protect legal reliability.
Most acts of soil and underground water pollution were caused by agricultural, industrial, or business operations. The provisions at issue imposed a duty on the pre-Act polluter to clean up, to pay for the clean-up, and to shut down operations, because contamination persisted after enactment of the Soil Pollution Act. This is a restriction on people’s right to work and right to property guaranteed by Article 15 of the Constitution, and a restriction on freedom to carry on business implicit in that Article. Therefore, the Act must be made to accord with the principle of proportionality set out in Article 23.
The purpose of the enactment of the Soil Pollution Act was to clean up soil and underground water contamination, to ensure the continued use of soil and underground water, to improve the living environment, and to protect public health (refer to Article 1 of the Soil Pollution Act). The provisions at issue are aimed at properly disposing of the abovementioned soil and underground water contamination, eliminating any contamination which existed before, and persisted after, the Act, carrying out a complete clean-up, whilst avoiding any spreading of the contamination. The Act has a proper purpose, and the means employed are helpful to achieving the end.
If we do not make a pre-Act polluter responsible for existing pollution, the damage will be born by others or by the nation. This offends social justice and affects national finances. Therefore, the provisions at issue make a pre-Act polluter responsible for the clean-up in order to properly resolve the issue of soil and underground water contamination. There being no other less restrictive means to attain the same effect, the provisions at issue shall be regarded as a necessary means to achieve the legislative purpose.
Pre-Act contamination persisting after the Act will jeopardize public health and the environment. Effective resolution of the issue of contamination is both necessary and in the public interest. The contamination caused by the pre-Act polluter was illegal. By law, the polluter was responsible to a certain degree for eliminating the contamination. The provisions at issue imposed a duty to clean-up, and placed certain restrictions on a polluter’s right to property. In comparison with the public interest protected, this is not evidently excessive. Overall, it does not violate the principle of proportionality stated in Article 23 of the Constitution, nor does it violate the intent of Article 15 of the Constitution guaranteeing people’s right to work and right to property.
According to Article 2, Section 12 of the Soil Pollution Act, a polluter is any person who commits acts listed in the law. Therefore, the provisions at issue take a person committing the abovementioned acts as the regulatory object. Whether an assignee of the polluter should assume the clean-up duty is not a question within the regulatory scheme of the provisions at issue. Therefore, there is no question as to whether the provisions at issue violate the principle of equality by failing to distinguish if the duty to clean-up falls on the polluter or an assignee.
Translated by Huai-Ching Tsai.
今日瀏覽人數：3686 總瀏覽人數：9503693
|
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。