|
In 2014, the Supreme Administrative Court delivered a guideline judgment in a case in which a hospital within the jurisdiction of Taichung city had made application to the status of a “residential district,” belonging to the original urban land, to a “special exclusive district of health services” in order to enlarge its hospital zone. It cited Article 27 of the urban planning law promulgated in April 2009, which has provisions for changes to urban planning. However, residents living beyond the north side of the amended zone, believing the amendment affected the quality of their residential district, took administrative actions for revocation. Following a hearing of the case, the Supreme Administrative Court took the view that since the north side residents constituted a third party external to the amended zone, even if their rights had been affected, this only constituted a reflected interest rather than a legal interest, and had no right to litigate. The court therefore reached a final and binding judgment against the plaintiff.
This article sets out firstly to investigate the legitimacy of the urban planning from the perspective of fundamental rights under constitutional law. To provide a clear outline of the legal characteristics of the modification of urban plans, the article summarizes the Supreme Court justice’s interpretation, judgment, and theory, in addition to the views of the administrative authority. Also, to provide a guide in investigating the issue of plaintiff eligibility in relation to the urban planning lawsuit, it is necessary first to clarify the operational procedures in amending urban planning and the legal questions that may arise while conducting these procedures.
In regard to litigation on modification of urban plans, if the study leaves aside cases rejected on the procedural grounds that the party involved is ineligible and focuses instead on the cases where a substantive judgment was issued, in most instances the administrative authority has won. Of course, one cannot use these data as criteria for judging whether the people have been deprived of the right to litigate. However, the government holds the overwhelming initiative with respect to amendments in city planning, while the people are in a relatively weak position. In circumstances where there is a lack of parity of information, where a judicial remedy is sought after the event, and where the status requirements for third parties are so rigorous that they are not allowed to enter the substantive process of scrutiny by the court, this article seeks to resolve the question of the eligibility of neighbors as plaintiffs in city planning litigation by investigating the “theory of protection norms” and by the subsumption of related legislation. Finally, following a discussion of related judicial findings, the article puts forward a number of opinions.
|