論環境影響評估訴訟之原告適格與實體審查之關聯性

On the Relationship between Plaintiff’s Standing and Substantive Review in Environmental Impact Assessment Litigation

我國之環境影響評估法基於預防原則，採「無環評、無許可、無開發」之規範結構。行政法院認定環境影響評估審查結論屬於行政處分後，將環評法特定條文解釋為保護規範，容許具有原告適格之當地居民提起撤銷訴訟，主張環境影響評估審查結論違法而侵害其權利或法律上利益。雖然公益團體得因主管機關未依法執行，提起行政訴訟，但卻不得對環評審查結論提起撤銷訴訟，導致行政法院可能無機會藉由撤銷訴訟，以環境公益為由，審查環評審查結論之合法性。本文擬參考歐盟法與德國法相關規定，分析環境影響評估訴訟之原告適格與實體審查之關聯性。

The Environmental Impact Assessment Act adopts the“no permission and no development without environmental impact assessment”normative structure on the basis of the precautionary principle. According to the opinion of the Highest Administrative Court, the environmental impact assessment review conclusion is classified as an administrative action that can be subject to judicial review. Although the Highest Administrative Court interpreted specific provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act as protective norms, only local residents who have legal standing can file a revocation lawsuit and claim that the illegal environmental impact assessment review conclusion violates their rights or legal interests. Although being entitled to file a lawsuit against public authorities for omissions when the developers violate the Environmental Impact Assessment Act or related regulations, the public interest groups cannot challenge the legality of the environmental impact assessment review conclusion on the basis of environmental public interest protection. As a result, the administrative courts will not have a chance to review the legality of the conclusions from the perspective of environmental public interests. This article will analyze the relationship between plaintiff’s standing and substantive review in environmental impact assessment litigation with reference to EU law and German law.