法國生態損害賠償法制之研究

On the Legal System of Ecological Damage Compensation in France

國人目前對於環境損害責任的想像，似仍停留在民法上受害人損害賠償／公法上受害環境整治復原的二元思維上。在此框架下，純粹的生態損害難以成為侵權責任法的保護客體，更遑論在國家賠償法上有任何立足之地。相反地，法國是區分公私法的先驅，卻選擇打破壁壘，而於2016年在民法典侵權責任次篇中新增「生態損害賠償」章，為此新型損害量身打造一套特殊機制；且此一專章還於2021年為巴黎地方行政法院在著名的「世紀案件」判決中適用，並據以判定國家應為自身在對抗氣候變遷上的缺失負責。本文先探討此一制度的緣起，次分論其在民法上的法制化、爾後在國家責任法上的發展，再對此制度的特點和實務動向進行剖析，最後以反思我國法作為總結。考量我國法現況，本文建議另立專法，依據生態損害的特點創設一般性的賠償機制，不限定責任主體、廣開訴訟之門、以復原環境為目的，積極回應生態危機的挑戰。

Currently, public perception in Taiwan regarding environmental damage liability seems to remain largely confined within a binary framework: victim compensation under civil law vis-à-vis environmental remediation and restoration under public law. Within this framework, pure ecological damage struggles to become the object of tort liability protection, let alone finding grounds in state liability law. As a pioneer in distinguishing public law from private law, France chose to break down barriers by adding a chapter on“Ecological Damage Compensation”in the Civil Code’s section on Tort Liability in 2016. This chapter tailored a special mechanism for this new type of damage applicable to anyone responsible for it. Moreover, this specific chapter was applied by the Paris Administrative Tribunal in the famous“Case of the Century”judgment in 2021, holding the state accountable for its failures in combating climate change.
The ecological damage compensation system in France not only forms the basis for understanding the“Case of the Century”judgment, but also serves as a model for us to contemplate our own. This article therefore aims to explore the origin of this system, discuss its institutionalisation in civil law, and follow its development in state liability law. It further analyses the characteristics and practical trends of this system, and finally reflects upon our country’s laws by using it as a reference. Considering the current legal situation in Taiwan, this article suggests the establishment of a special legislation. Drawing on the characteristics of ecological damage, the article proposes the creation of a general compensation tool—not restricting the liable parties, opening the doors to litigation widely, and aiming at environmental restoration—that actively addresses the challenges of the ecological crisis.