從法國經驗論我國民事責任法承認純粹性生態損害之可能性

On the Possibility of Recognizing Pure Ecological Prejudice in Taiwan’s Civil Liability Law from the Comparative Approach of French Law

隨著環保意識抬頭，生態損害的問題越來越重要。傳統以「權利主體」為中心的民事責任法制，固然可以解決「具體」、「特定」人之人身權利受侵害之生態損害，但對於單純「生態要素或功能」加以侵害，而無涉及人身權利之「純粹性生態損害」應如何處理，我國只有海洋污染防治法第36條最接近「純粹性生態損害」之請求權基礎外，民事責任法制並無相關規範。法國在2016年民法債編修正時，將生態損害納入民法典規範，使之成為得請求賠償之損害。本文建議在解釋論上，應將海洋污染防治法及民法第191條之3擴張適用於純粹性生態損害；在立法論上應參考法國之立法例，將純粹性生態損害納入民法侵權行為，並就生態損害設立適合之賠償方法。

With the rise of environmental awareness, the issue of ecological prejudice is becoming more and more critical. The traditional civil liability law centered on the“subject of right”can certainly solve the ecological prejudice caused by the infringement of“specific”personal rights. However, it can’t solve the“pure ecological prejudice”which means the prejudice caused by the breach of“simple ecological elements or functions”without involving“specific”personal rights. In our legal system, the Article 36 of Marine Pollution Control Act is the closest legal basis to deal with the“pure ecological prejudice”. In addition, there is no relevant legal basis in the civil liability law. With the Biodiversity Law n°2016-1087 of August 8, 2016, the French Civil Code formally recognized“ecological prejudice”as indemnifiable damage. This paper suggests that in terms of interpretation, we should broaden the application field of Article 36 of Marine Pollution Control Act and Article 191-3 of Civil Code to other pure ecological prejudice; in terms of legislation, we should refer to the French Civil Code and recognize pure ecological prejudice as a category of indemnifiable damage. Besides, we should also establish some appropriate legal compensation measures to deal with the pure ecological prejudice.