住宅租金補貼「行」「不行」──評析臺北地方法院110年度簡字第70號等四則判決

Eligibility of Housing Rental Subsidy－Comments on the four judgments, including the 2021 Year Jian Zi No. 70, made by Taiwan Taipei District Court

本案歷經四則法院之判決，其爭點在於：原告申請住宅租金補貼之住宅是否符合租金補貼辦法之規定？易言之，租金補貼辦法將可受租金補貼之住宅勾稽建築法之使用執照用途是否符合住宅法之授權？就此，本文從居住為憲法所保障之基本人權出發，定位住宅租金補貼為住宅法落實居住人權與經社文公約適足住房權之重要途徑，並據以指出原審判決將住宅租金補貼定位為政策性優惠措施之缺遺，從而肯定後續審法院援引住宅法保障居住人權與落實經濟社會文化權利國際公約適足住房權之立法意旨，對本案行政機關之個案決定予以審查與糾正。此外，本文也指出租金補貼辦法之相關規定，恐有為母法所無之限制，而有牴觸母法授權之目的與逾越母法授權範圍之問題。

The issue of this case, which occurred after four court trials, lies in: whether the dwellings for which the plaintiff applied for housing rental subsidy meet the Rental Subsidy Regulations. In other words, does it comply with the authorization of the Housing Act when the Rental Subsidy Regulations classifies the dwellings’ eligibility for rental subsidy by the permitted usage of the Building Act? From the perspective of the right to housing being a fundamental human right guaranteed by the Constitution, this paper identifies housing rental subsidy as an important way to implement not only the human right to housing under the Housing Act, but also the adequate housing right under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Thus, this study points out the shortcomings of the original judgment in ruling rental subsidy as a preferential policy. It further affirms the invocations of the Housing Act and the ICESCR made by the following three judgements, under the assertion of human right of housing, to review and correct the decision of the administrative authorities. In addition, this study also points out that relevant provisions of Rental Subsidy Regulations may be restricted due to the legal lacuna of the parent law, and thus may contradict the intention of the enabling statute and go beyond the scope of power granted by the enabling statute.