EPA-107-K104-03-A208

108

2,748 千元

管制考核及糾紛處理-公害糾紛處理與鑑定

2018/07/06

2019/12/31

黃豐玢律師

管考處

潘嘉妤

環宇法律事務所

公害糾紛

公害事件、舉證責任、公害糾紛處理法

Public Nuisance Dispute, Burden of Proof , Public Nuisance Dispute Mediation Act

姜世明教授；王千維教授；林春元教授；辛年豐教授；王鼎傑博士

黃豐玢律師

02-27556595#

divd@liang-law.com.tw

本計畫以公害糾紛案件舉證責任分配為關注焦點，首先藉由盤點公害糾紛裁決及民事訴訟判決之案例，爬梳實務上對於公害糾紛侵權行為紛爭原因、損害類型及賠償範圍之判斷，並分析歷年來民法及公害糾紛處理法之舉證責任與重要程序制度在實務上之適用情形，探討在我國公害糾紛侵權行為事件中，民眾於舉證上所遭遇之困難及其原因。 其次，本計畫借鏡外國法制中公害糾紛處理機制之立法與落實，研析德、美、日三個國家對於公害糾紛侵權行為在民事責任之「舉證責任」、「資訊請求」、「連帶責任」、「時效延長」及「法律扶助」相關制度之規範與運作。 本計畫復以德國「環境責任法」中舉證責任之規範為觀察核心，特別指出在公害糾紛中相關舉證責任之解釋與運用，建議增訂民法第191條之4，作為在未訂立專法前之過渡期間針對環境危險責任之規定，並明文推定過失、推定因果關係。同時，本計畫並提出在未增訂民法第191條之4或環境責任法之前，亦得於公害糾紛處理法中增訂針對公害糾紛侵權行為之舉證責任分配之規範，以獨立章節增訂「因果關係之推定及資訊請求」，以利被害人於公害糾紛處理程序及後續司法救濟時，得以援引適用，俾保障被害人權益。 再者，本計畫經檢視公害糾紛處理法之機制與程序運作後，指出現行經公害糾紛程序中「紓處」機制確可達定紛止爭之效果，同時考量調處程序在調處委員會之組成嚴謹度要求較高、相關流程較為繁複，於實務適用上較受限，從而，本計畫擬建議透過建立紓處程序之機制，有效達到先期過濾、減緩公害糾紛之目的，亦能有效率解決公害糾紛案件。 職此，本計畫研析現行公害糾紛侵權行為所面臨之主要爭議，分別就(1)公害事件舉證責任分配；(2)資訊請求權；(3)公害糾紛處理機制之變更與修正，分別研擬具體修正條文、程序規範及相關施行細則，希能完善公害糾紛處理機制，使參與程序之當事人獲得公平保障，以落實公害糾紛處理之立法目的。

公害事件、舉證責任、公害糾紛處理法

EPA-107-K104-03-A208.pdf

2MB

期末報告

2020/1/15 上午 12:00:00

The project focuses on the burden of proof in the public nuisance disputes. First of all, by examining the cases of public nuisance disputes decisions and civil litigation judgments, the project analyzes the causes of disputes, the types of damages and the scope of compensation for the public nuisance disputes in practical situations. Also, the project analyzes the practical application regarding the burden of proof and the important procedures provided in the Civil Code and the Public Nuisance Dispute Mediation Act over the years to investigate the difficulties of proving the infringement faced by the general public and reasons for such difficulties in the tort cases in relation to the public nuisance disputes in Taiwan. Secondly, the project learns from experience on the legislation and implementation of public nuisance dispute resolution mechanisms in foreign legal systems by analyzing the regulation and operation of systems related to “burden of proof,” “request for information,” “joint liability,” “extension of the prescription period” and “legal aids” regarding the civil liabilities of public nuisance torts in Germany, the United States and Japan. Furthermore, the project specifically points out the interpretation and application of the related burden of proof in public nuisance disputes, based on the provisions of burden of proof under the Environmental Liability Act (Umwelthaftungsgesetz) in Germany. The project proposes to add Article 191-4 to the Civil Code, where the negligence and the causation are presumed, as the provision for environmental hazard liabilities during the transition period before enacting a separate law for such liabilities. Moreover, it is suggested that, before adding Article 191-4 to the Civil Code or enacting an Environmental Liability Act, the provisions for the allocation of burden of proof regarding public nuisance torts may be added to the Public Nuisance Dispute Mediation Act by adding an independent chapter “ Presumption of Causation and Request for Information” which could be applied to protect the victims’ rights and interests in the public nuisance dispute resolution process and the subsequent litigation process. In addition, after reviewing the mechanism and procedures under the Public Nuisance Dispute Mediation Act, the project indicates that disputes can be substantially resolved through the “management” mechanism in the current public nuisance dispute mediation procedure. The application of mediation procedure is more limited in practice as the mediation committee is organized more cautiously and the related processes are more complicated. As such, the project suggests establishment of the management mechanism to effectively sort out the public nuisance disputes in the first place, to reduce the disputes, and to effectively solve the public nuisance disputes cases. Accordingly, the project analyzes the main disputes in the current public nuisance tort cases and drafts the amendments, the procedures and the implementation rules regarding (1) the allocation of burden of proof in the public nuisances cases; (2) the right to request for information; and (3) the modifications and amendments of public nuisance dispute resolution mechanism, respectively, in the hope of perfecting the public nuisance dispute resolution mechanism and providing fair protection to the parties involved so as to achieve the purposes of the Public Nuisance Dispute Mediation Act.

Public Nuisance Dispute, Burden of Proof , Public Nuisance Dispute Mediation Act