Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/66582
標題: The Legitimacy of Retroactive Regulations: Focus on the Effect of Charging Standard For Environment Maintenance Fee under Sand and Gravel Excavation Act
論溯及性法規之合法性問題:從土石採取法「環境維護費收費基準」之時間效力談起
作者: 林昱梅
Lin, Yuh-May
關鍵字: 土石採取法;Sand and Gravel Excavation Act;環境維護費;法安定性;信賴保護原則;法規不溯既往原則;從新從優原則;environment maintenance fee;stability of law;the principle of reliance protection;the principle of non-retroactivity of laws and regulations;the principle of applying new or more advantageous regulations
Project: 東吳法律學報, Volume 23, Issue 4, Page(s) 1-42.
摘要: 
土石採取法第48 條規定主管機關核發土石採取許可證時,應收取環境維護
費。經濟部於92 年7 月4 日公告「環境維護費收費基準」,並溯及自土石採取法
生效之日(即92 年2 月8 日)起實施。最高行政法院98 年12 月份第2 次庭長法
官聯席會議決議認為,環境維護費收費基準之溯及性立法,係為實現保護環境及
生態的重大公益,並無違憲。
本文雖贊同環境維護費之立法政策,但基於法安定性及信賴保護原則,本文
認為環境維護費收費標準溯及實施有違憲之虞。又本文認為環境維護費屬特別公
課,與土石採取之許可相互獨立,其係課予人民負擔,非屬中央法規標準法第18
條所定「依法聲請之案件」,故不適用該條之規定。

Article 48 of Sand and Gravel Excavation Act stated that Governments shall collect
environment maintenance fee when issuing Sand and Gravel Excavation Permit. The “Charging
Standard for Environment Maintenance Fee” was announced at July 4, 2003 by the Ministry
of Economic Affairs. It came into effect restrictively from Feb. 8, 2003. The committee of
Chief Judge and Judges in Supreme Administrative Court viewed the retroactive legislation
of “charging standard for environment maintenance fee” not unconstitutional because of the
public interest of environment and ecology protection.
This essay agrees the legislative policy of charging environment maintenance fee. But
based on the principles of stability of law and reliance protection, the retroactive implementation
of “Charging Standard for Environment Maintenance Fee” is unconstitutional. This paper
argues that environment maintenance fees are “special tax”. The environment maintenance
fee and the Sand and Gravel Excavation Permit are independent of each other. The charging
of environment maintenance fee places a burden on the people and can not apply Article 18
of Central Regulation Standard Act because it is not a case of an application by one person.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/66582
Appears in Collections:法律學系

Show full item record
 

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.