| 英文摘要 |
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. |
