行政計畫確認訴訟與都市計畫審查程序之比較與連結

The Comparison and the Connection Between Declaratory Judgment of the Administrative Planning and the Review Procedure of Urban Planning

立法院於2020年修正行政訴訟法時增訂「都市計畫審查程序」章節，落實司法院釋字第742號解釋意旨，使人民得針對與其利害相關之都市計畫（包含主要計畫及細部計畫）擬定與變更，認為有損害其法律上權利或利益時，提起訴訟以資救濟。都市計畫審查程序，開啟行政訴訟法上針對抽象法規範為審查之先河，除主觀公權利之維護外，也包含客觀法規範之審查。歷經司法院釋字第148號、第156號及第742號解釋，大法官於歷次解釋中，嘗試針對都市計畫之內涵予以定性。雖然學說上對此意見分歧，然而，在司法院釋字第742號解釋之作成及都市計畫審查程序專章之訂立下，解決過往所爭執針對抽象法規命令得否提起行政訴訟之問題。然而，2020年行政訴訟法修法僅針對都市計畫部分開啟救濟管道，針對其他類型之行政計畫是否亦具有救濟途徑仍存在爭議。本文將以此部分之議題為中心，討論具有抽象法規命令性質之行政計畫是否能提起行政救濟，以及都市計畫審查程序訂立後，確認訴訟與此程序之互動關係如何，透過整理分析下，嘗試提出個人見解。

The Legislative Yuan amended the Administrative Litigation Act, adding the ＂Review Procedure of Urban Planning＂. Under the mandate of judicial interpretation No. 742, the Administrative Litigation Act, was amended to enable citizens whose rights or interests were jeopardized to initiate a litigation in subjects of urban planning. The review procedure opened the gates for the review of abstract norms. Aside from the protection of subject rights, the review procedure includes review of objective norms. With judicial interpretations No. 148, 156 and 742, all justices attempted to categorize the content of urban planning. Although academic views are conflicting, judicial interpretation No. 742 has resolved the issue of whether abstract regulations in urban planning can be litigated. However, the interpretation still fails to consider the lack of recourse for other types of administrative planning. This article seeks to discuss whether administrative regulations for these other administrative plans should be subject to litigation. Furthermore, suppose we should be able to, the paper will analyze how will claims of declaratory judgement will interact with the aforementioned litigation.