Standing in Administrative Litigation: A Comparison with the United States

原告適格是行政訴訟的核心問題，本文旨在我國法上提出一套完整的行政訴訟原告適格檢驗體系。 依我國行政訴訟法第4條、第5條，以及第9條之規定，原告須主張自己之「權利」或「法律上利益」受有損害，始得提起行政訴訟。如何判斷原告所主張之利益屬於「權利」或「法律上利益」，我國通說與實務係採取「保護規範理論」，但並未提出具體之操作標準，以致於原告適格之認定流於綜合判斷，本文對此嘗試提出「法規目的效果」判準，以供參考。 又過去實務裁判十分強調行政處分與損害結果間之因果關係，並常以因果關係之欠缺為由否定原告適格。在保護規範理論興起後，此種因果關係要件是否仍有存在之必要，有待釐清。本文針對美國法上原告適格檢驗體系進行比較法上之分析後，擬於我國法上提出「實際侵害」與「權利侵害」二階段之行政訴訟原告適格判斷模式。在「實際侵害」層次，原告須主張其所具有之利益受到侵害，且侵害之結果與系爭行政處分之間具有因果關係。「權利侵害」層次則以保護規範理論檢驗原告所主張之利益是否具有權利屬性。此二階段判斷模式將「因果關係」之檢討前置於「保護規範理論」，具有快速過濾訴訟之功能。 此外，本文認為保護規範理論有其適用範圍。在原告依據特別法規定「受害人民」之公民訴訟條款而起訴時，僅須主張其受到「實際侵害」，即享有訴訟權能；在「對人之一般處分」撤銷訴訟中，原告受到「一般性特徵」範圍內之「實際侵害」時，亦有訴訟權能。此二種情形皆無保護規範理論之適用，且屬於立法者有意放寬原告適格範圍之情形，解釋上應認為此等受有實際侵害之人所主張之利益即屬於「法律上利益」。Taiwanese administrative courts used to apply the causation test, which requires the existence of a causal link between the plaintiff’s allegedly injured interest and the defendant’s conduct, in examining whether the plaintiff has standing to sue. More courts, however, have started to apply the Theory of Protective Norms instead of the causation test in their adjudications. In order to clarify and to systemize the relationship between the Theory of Protective Norms and the causation test, this thesis attempts to propose a new standing rule through comparison with the United States law. The proposed standing rule consists of two stages. First, the plaintiff must allege personal interest, injury of which is fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct. Second, the alleged injury must be legal injury under the Theory of Protective Norms. This two-stage structure retains the causation test and prepose it to the Theory of Protective Norms, so as to filter out unnecessary litigations in a more efficient fashion. In addition, the new rule suggests that a plaintiff can satisfy the standing requirement only because this plaintiff has suffered injury in fact when statutes so authorize. Therefore, the Theory of Protective Norms in examining the standing cannot be applied in the following two types of cases. First, if a plaintiff initiates litigation in pursuant to a citizen suit provision, this plaintiff is entitled to sue as long as having allegedly suffered injury in fact as a “victim”. Second, if a plaintiff challenges an administrative disposition under the former part of Article 92, second paragraph of the Administrative Procedure Act, this plaintiff obtains standing only when having allegedly suffered injury in fact that bears the “general characteristics” formed by the specific facts in a given case. This thesis also attempts to propose a “purpose-effect beneficiary test” that helps manipulate the Theory of Protective Norms