涉外公害事件之國際裁判管轄與適切法院──以最高法院110年度台抗字第1019號民事裁定為中心

International Jurisdiction and Proper Forum in Foreign Public Nuisance Dispute: A Comment on the Supreme Court Ruling No. 110 Tai-Kang 1019

依最高法院110年度台抗字第1019號裁定意旨，民事訴訟法第20條但書不得類推或作為外國法院有共同管轄權之依據，針對主事務所、主營業所或住所設於我國之被告，我國法院自有管轄權。然而，本裁定似未具體考量我國法院是否確係審理本件爭議之適切法院，除將造成司法沉重之負擔外，未來恐有程序正義與實體正義雙雙落空之虞。本文以適切法院為核心，檢視本件下級審法院是否妥適運用特別情事原則，同時提出不便利法庭原則未來或可在我國實務評估運用之呼籲。

In its Ruling No. 110 Tai-Kang 1019, the Supreme Court affirms the Taiwan High Court’s finding that Article 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure can’t be applied by analogy as the basis of joint jurisdiction among the defendants from different jurisdictions. The Court can exercise jurisdiction in a case brought against those defendants whose main office and/or domicile are located in Taiwan. Yet, it seemed the Court failed to consider whether Taiwan Court is the Proper Forum to hear this foreign public nuisance dispute.
This article points out that the Special Circumstance Theory was not appropriately applied by the court. The author further appeals that there could be room for the court to apply the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in the future while hearing a complex litigation like this.