都市計畫之計畫形成自由及其司法審查密度──以德國法制為觀察比較之對象

Judicial Review and Its Scope on Urban Plan: Focus on the Comparative to the German Legal Institution

我國對於都市計畫司法審查之實務，長期以來基於司法院釋字第156號解釋之意旨，無論變更者為主要計畫或細部計畫，皆認其性質為行政處分，而得成為撤銷訴訟之爭訟標的。至於在司法審查密度的論述上，行政法院的說明不一而足，近年來較常見者為關於判斷餘地理論之論述。本文藉由德國已發展較完善之空間總體計畫法制中關於計畫類型及計畫形成自由的理論，重新檢視我國長期以來對於都市計畫司法審查之審查標的與審查密度的問題。對於審查標的，行政法院未來應正確理解主要計畫與細部計畫之關聯性及法律性質，始得以使都市計畫法規審查程序之制度設計及運作符合空間計畫法之法理。至於司法審查密度的問題，行政法院不僅須重新認識判斷餘地理論，更應建立空間計畫法關於計畫形成自由及利益衡量理論之說理。惟在我國都市計畫法及相關法規立法規範不足的情形下，欲藉此達到對於空間計畫發揮司法監督之功能，勢必仍是力有未逮。欲完善我國對於空間總體計畫之司法審查制度，釜底抽薪之計，除須於行政訴訟法中增設空間計畫之法規審查程序外，更重要的工作則在於修正都市計畫法等相關空間總體計畫法規，重視其為目標性規範之特性，強化對於計畫形成自由之認識及規制，如此始可使我國空間計畫法制及對於都市計畫合法性之監督制度得以更臻完備。

The judiciary in Taiwan holds the opinion for a long time that both master plans and detail plans in urban planning qualify as administrative acts (Verwaltungsakt) and can be reviewed in the suits for their invalidity (Anfechtungsklage). As far as the standard of the judicial review is concerned, some verdicts differ from the others and the theory of the scope for evaluation (Beurteilungsspielraum) has been most often cited as the basis for verdict reasoning. Based on the German legal system of spatial planning and on the theory of planning freedom, this article discusses the object as well as of the density of judicial review in urban planning. The author reaches the conclusion that the administrative courts in Taiwan should understand the relevance and legal nature of main plans and detailed plans correctly. In addition, they must not only re-recognize the theory of the scope for evaluation, but should also reason out correctly the theory of the freedom of planning and of duly weighing public and private interests in their verdicts. Besides revising the Administrative Litigation Act, the maturity of the spatial planning legal system and of its judicial review depends moreover on the revising the Urban Planning Act and other related statutes.