既成道路之私法性質與徵收補償請求基礎──釋字第747號解釋後的新局

The Private Law Nature and Compensation Basis for Private Land Used for Public Passage: A New Path Created by Constitutional Court Interpretation No. 747

行政法院拒絕以大法官解釋及憲法第15條作為補償之請求權基礎，因而直接駁回許多財產權受特別犧牲者的訴訟。釋字第747號解釋公布後，若財產權人受侵害之型態，可以對應到既存定限物權類型者，可以請求徵收定限物權並獲得補償。若特別犧牲之型態，無法對應到既存定限物權類型，財產權人仍求償無門。本文初探財產權特別犧牲之補償理論，提出財產權的特殊三分結構，使財產權與其他憲法防禦權不同，因而可以支持不待立法明文的一般性補償請求。此外，作成在前的釋字第400號解釋，創設了公用地役關係概念，使得既成道路的補償問題，較其他類型的財產權補償更為複雜。本文釐清了公用地役關係的私法性質，與四種情境下道路所有權人的補償請求權基礎。

In practice, the administrative courts in Taiwan have refused to recognize the Constitution or constitutional interpretations by the Constitutional Court as causes of action. After Judicial Yuan declared Interpretation No. 747, property right holders can demand expropriation of limited property rights to receive compensation, if the infringement of property rights is similar to deprivation of an existing type of limited property right. Nonetheless, the infringement is not as if a limited property right has been taken, property rights holders cannot demand compensation. This article advances a preliminary theory of regulatory takings, specifically arguing that the idiosyncratic tripartite structure of property rights makes it different from other negative liberty rights. The difference supports a general cause of action for compensation for regulatory takings, even without legislative enactment. Besides, the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 400 invented a concept of public real servitude, making more complicated the compensation for private land used for public passage without being expropriated. This article clarifies the private law nature of public real servitude and the cause of actions for landowners in four scenarios.