Close

一月 16, 2017

兩公約國際審查─居住權的司法適用問題、人民參與問題、結論性意見落實問題

經社文公約的司法適用問題

台灣反迫遷連線在此要特別強調兩公約在國內司法適用上的問題,並且以居住權為例,可以參照影子報告第210點。我們認為關於居住權的公約內國法化及司法判決實務,違背了《經社文公約》第3號一般性意見第3點、第10點精神(參見第3號一般性意見第5點),第4號一般性意見,第7號一般性意見第13點、第15點精神,第9號一般性意見書第以及2013第一次國家報告審查的第14至第16點結論性觀察與建議,使得我國禁止迫遷法制仍未完備,人民受迫遷時仍救濟無門。

2013年第一次國家報告審查時,專家曾在結論性觀察與建議第47點直指政府在華光社區的作法違反國際人權標準,並在第49點直指「在未提供符合聯合國經濟社會文化權利委員會第四與第七號一般性意見的替代住宅之前,應該停止強制驅離住民,確保居民不會無家可歸。可惜的是這些居民仍在審查結束後的同一個月開始遭到迫遷。這些居民在遭到迫遷後嘗試向行政法院提起訴訟,控告政府違反國際公約,由於他們都是非正規住居,因此居住權是他們唯一可以主張的法律權利。然而歷經二審判決,居民的主張一概被拒絕,法院認為居住權不能作為提起訴訟的請求權基礎。

行政法院採納最高行政法院103年8月份第1次庭長法官聯席會議決議,認為居住權僅是宣示性規範,不能據以提起訴訟。該決議做為法官判決之依據,認為「無明確之規定、不得為人民之請求權依據,按照該決議的標準與其舉例,我們如果逐一檢視經社文公約中64個具體項目,五分之四都無法進行司法救濟。

雖然我們看到仍有法官積極引用公約判決,來保障無產權者的居住權,例如桃園地院104年度重訴字第393號與台北地院103年度訴字第260號判決,但我們仍希望專家能夠再次關注這個問題,否則不只是居住權無法獲得救濟,經社文公約的影響也會被嚴重限縮。

The justiciability of ICESCR by Taiwan Alliance of Anti Forced Eviction

TAAFE is going to emphasize the problem of application and justiciability of Covenants in domestic judicature, and taking issues of housing rights as the example. Please refer to Paragraph 210 in the Shadow Report. We believe that the judicial practice of the right to housing violates the spirit of Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 10 under General Comment No.3 of the ICESCR, General Comment No. 4, Paragraph 13 and Paragraph 15 of General Comment No. 7, Paragraph 11 and Paragraph 15 of General Comment No. 9, and also the Paragraph 14-16 of Concluding Observations and Comments of 2013. As a result, Taiwan’s legal system is incomprehensive regarding the prevention of evictions, and people are helpless when being forced-evicted.

In the first State Review in 2013, experts once pointed out in Concluding Observation no.47 that the eviction of Huaguang Community violated international human rights standards, and in no.49 “forced evictions be stopped unless alternative housing is provided in line with General Comments 4 and 7 of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ensuring that the residents do not become homeless.”It’ a pity that the residents of Huaguang Community were evicted right in the same month after the review. After the eviction, the residents tried to file lawsuit to administrative court against the government for violating Covenants. Since they all are residents of informal settlements, the right to housing is the only legal right they can claim. However, both the judgment of first and second trial rejected their claim. The court didn’t recognize housing rights as the claim ground.

The court adopted the resolution of the first Chief Judge Meeting in August 2014, and considered housing rights as declarative regulation which is not eligible to be the claim ground. this resolution, which serve as the guidelines for judges, claimed that “Regulations in Covenants without clarity could not be the claim ground”. If we view all 64 categories in the ICESCR by the criteria and examples in this resolution, four fifth of them are unable to claim judicial remedy.

Though there are still some judges applied the covenants to protect the tenure of the informal settlements, such as Zun Su No. 393 Civil Judgment(2015) of the Taiwan Taoyuan District Court and Su No. 260 Civil Judgment(2014) of the Taiwan Taipei District Court, we still hope that experts can concern this issue again. Otherwise not only the housing rights can’t be protected, but also the impact of ICESCR will be limited seriously.

居住權中的人民參與問題(回應2013年結論性意見第20點)

遊民政策

政府對於遊民的瞭解僅停留在研究階段,遊民政策並未實際有所突破。制定相關政策措施時,未邀請遊民參與決策,反而,時常以都市發展、清理市容為由,帶頭驅逐遊民。

國土清理

國有土地利用採跨部會小組決策,小組決策過程沒有民眾參與程序,且因土地上多是無財產權的非正規聚落,被政府認為是強佔國土,所以沒有真誠磋商的機制,也不會有安置計畫,事後更無法在司法救濟程序中獲得保障。

市地重劃

公辦市地重劃於核定都前不會通知居民,自辦市地重劃則是僅需過人數及土地皆過半居民同意即可報請主管核定。此種低標準的多數決制,嚴重侵害小地主的權益。並且,市地重劃不會進行安置,拆遷費卻不足以讓居民再買房子,導致居民被實質迫遷。至於啟動計畫修改的門檻高,檢討程序亦無民眾參與機制,故我們可以說市地重劃並不存在真誠磋商的程序。

都市更新

都市更新條例採75%面積同意比例為案件通過基準,加上第36條規定了居民不限期離開者可由政府代拆房屋的強拆條款,造成不願離去的居民容易被迫遷。雖然有公聽會、委員會等程序,甚至於大法官釋字709後有程序參與強度高的聽證,但都市更新的聽證嚴謹程度僅到公聽會,不管是公聽會、委員會、聽證,居民意見依然無法影響計畫的規劃。

土地徵收

目前土地徵收時常不具徵收必要性、公益性,造成徵收浮濫。徵收及前置的規劃審議皆是由委員會方式審議,並未於會中釐清計畫必要性與公益性,例如台南鐵路案。雖2012年修法後,土徵條例規定位於特定農業區的爭議案件應提高程序參與的保障,舉辦聽證,然而因為聽證程序設計不佳導致爭點無法被釐清,以航空城為例,聽證後計畫亦未有任何改變。這同時顯現一個的問題,就是民眾參與的時機過晚,應該將參與時間點提前至興辦事業計畫規畫時。

結論

我們可以看到,遊民政策、國土清理決策及市地重劃核定程序部分,缺乏利害關係人的參與程序,故缺乏公約真誠磋商的機制。

至於有公聽會、聽證等民眾參與的程序者,民眾的意見對於計劃依然沒有影響力,利害相關人的居住權保障亦未因此有所改善,故亦不符合公約要求的真誠磋商的標準。並且目前許多案件都是政府已經規劃好甚至核定才進行民眾參與,時機過晚,應提前參與時間點。

The part of genuine consultation

Homelessness

The understanding toward homelessness of the government is staying at the stage of “research”, and the homelessness policy has no actually breakthrough. When the government formulate policies and measures related to homelessness, they don’t invite homelessness to join the decision making procedure. Instead, the government often take the lead to expel homelessness in the reasons of Urban Development and the demand for clearing up the appearance of a city.

Nation Land Clean-up

The decision of how to use national land is made by Inter-ministerial group, which has no people’s participation. Moreover, there are mostly informal settlements without ownership on the land, which are regarded as occupying national land by the government. So there’s no any measures of sincere negotiation or any resettlement plan. Even, we people cannot be protected by judicial procedures.

Urban Land Consolidation

Urban land consolidation conducted by public agencies has no notification to residents before it is approved; the one conducted by private agencies needs only both people and land accounting over 50% to submit approval of authorities. This low-standards majority system has gravely infringe on the rights of small landowners. Moreover, there’s no any resettlement measures for the residents, and the compensation doesn’t make the residents affordable of buying houses that leads to virtual forced eviction. As for the threshold to amend the plan, it is too high. Moreover, there’s no people’s participation in the review procedure. So we can say that there’s no any sincere negotiation procedure in urban land consolidation.

Urban renewal

Article 22 of the Urban Renewal Act sets agreement of landowners with at least 75 percent of the existing land area and floor area as the standard for approval of an urban renewal business plan, Article 36 regulates forced removals or relocation, these make the people who don’t want to leave their home easily to suffer forced eviction. Although there is public hearings and professional committees, and after Judicial Yuan Interpretation 709(year 2013) urban renewal case should have hearing process, but the practice of hearing do not feature pluralistic debate, it is just like public process. Therefore, whether public hearings, professional committees or hearings, the stakeholders can hardly influence the design of government project.

Expropriation

Expropriation at present are carried out without clear and precise standards for assessing the public interest or necessity. This results in unnecessary and excessive expropriation. Usually the planning and examination of expropriation is executed by a committee which did not clarify what the public interest or necessity is, such as “The Underground Railway Project in Tainan”.

The “Land Expropriation Act” was revised at 2012. In this revision, controversial cases which include specific agricultural areas are asked to hold hearing process so that stakeholders can have better process involvement. Unfortunately the hearing process is not properly designed, and the argument points are not clarified during the hearing. Take the Taoyuan Aerotropolis project as an example, the zone expropriation plan does not change at all after the hearing.

This also indicate another problem : the current process only allow resident to participate at very late stage. The timing of people’s participation should be set forward to when the government’s business-setting-up plan is in planing.

Conclusion

We can see that the case of homelessness, nation land clean-up and urban land consolidation lack of the process for stakeholders to participate when decision is making, so these case don’t have facilitating genuine consultations.

In the case which have public hearing or hearing, the argument of people still have no influential upon the design of projects or government decisions, the protection of the right of housing of the stakeholders is still not improved, so these case still didn’t meet ICESCR’s target of genuine consultations.

In the end, many case is that the people’s participate timing is after the project approval. The timing is too late, although there is public participate process, the project is already hardly or even can’t be change. So the timing of public participate process should be earlier.

結論性意見落實的問題

我們想從近年來「居住權」的角度,回應第一次人權審查結論性意見的第十三點。在「居住權」的部分,政府這幾年來未停止迫遷,顯然未落實前次的結論性意見,也沒有實行第十三點結論性意見的內容。事實上,過去數年已發生許多重大迫遷事件,包含前次結論性意見中的華光社區,全區已於2013年8月強制拆除,居民迄今仍持續被追討不當得利,而當前也有許多社區正面臨迫遷威脅。

追根究底,這是因為國家沒有從制度層面保障居住權。許多土地開發或土地清理的政策,例如都市更新、區段徵收、市地重劃、國土清理政策,都未將保障居住權納入考量,也沒有妥善的民眾參與機制和開發的公共性、必要性的評估,造成許多有產權者與無產權者的迫遷。在這之中,無產權者,例如非正式住居、租戶,遭遇的情況最為嚴峻,因為無產權者在制度上缺乏保有權的保障,土地開發或土地清理的行政機關依法沒有跟他們磋商的義務,因此即便是進入協商的個案,如紹興社區,也無法排除日後被迫遷的可能。而且,司法也不是有用的救濟管道,很多無產權者的迫遷案件,都有法院判決為迫遷背書,因為在絕多數的法院訴訟中,法院僅看重地主的財產權;甚至還拒絕承認非正式住居有「居住權」的訴訟請求基礎。

此外,就遊民議題而言,政府沒有整體的政策、法令和措施,連最基本的生活援助都做不到,例如安置機構嚴重不足,也缺乏遊民多元輔導的機制。更根本來說,台灣政府無法掌握遊民實際人數,因為政府並未就前次結論性意見的建議,修正現行遊民定義在地方政府各自認定下,定義混亂,無法確實掌握遊民人數,嚴重低估遊民人數的問題。

Respond to Points 13: from the Perspective of Housing Rights

We’d like to respond to points 13 from the perspective of Housing rights. Particularly, we’d like to respond to points 47 to 51 of the Concluding Observations and Recommendations. In general, the government has not stopped forced eviction since the review of 2013. It does not review either the Urban renewal Act or the regulations concerning informal settlements on the basis of housing rights protection. Not to mention other related regulations. In short, the government did not carry out the recommendation from the first review.

The most problematical case is the Huaguang Community, whose residents were all evicted by August in 2013 despite its appearance on the concluding observations. The President of the Executive Yuan at the time, Mr. Jiang Yi-huah, even dare to state that the informal settlements do not have housing rights since they do not have property rights. The residents of Huaguang community are still being demanded to pay the compensation to the Ministry of Justice, which is unbearable for them. Except Huaguang, many other communities are facing the threat of eviction as well.

The root of the problem lies in the deficiency of the institution. The five major institutions mentioned in our shadow report and this morning does not consider the protection of housing rights. These institutions are land expropriation, urban land consolidation, urban renewal, informal settlement clearance, and the homeless. In implementation, the informal settlers and tenants who do not have property rights are the most easily evicted. They do not have any security of tenure. The administrative agencies do not have the duty to have genuine consultation with them before eviction. Even in some cases where negotiation is underway, such as the Shaoxing community, there is no legal protection of the residents. They may be rendered homeless once the goodwill of the administrative agency is gone.

In terms of the homeless, the government fails to carry out necessary policies to improve the situation of them. The accommodation is still seriously lacking, the mechanism to help them find jobs is insufficient. The government cannot even accurately calculate the total number of the homeless until now. This is because the government has not followed the recommendations of the last review, to centralize the administration of the homeless to transcend the welfare localism, or to cooperate with local civil organizations.

 此篇文章為2017年兩公約第二次國家報告國際審查會議現場,反迫遷連線及相關團體合作之發言稿

One Comment on “兩公約國際審查─居住權的司法適用問題、人民參與問題、結論性意見落實問題

[…] […]

Comments are closed.