Go to Content Area :::

Decisions

Home > Decisions > Docket Search > Before 2022
:::
:::
  • Interpretation
  • No.148
  • Date
  • 1977/05/06
  • Issue
    • Does the competent authority*s alteration of an urban plan constitute an administrative act not directed to any specific person, thus entitling him to institute administrative litigation?
  • Holding
    •        The competent authority*s alteration of an urban plan is not regarded as a person-specific administrative measure by the administrative court, thereby barring the people from initiating administrative litigations against it. Based on the foregoing, the court has dismissed the application with a ruling. Although the said ruling is inconsistent with the said court*s precedents, it does not raise issues as to the constitutionality of the laws or orders adopted by the final court judge.
  • Reasoning
    •        The objectives of this application can be summarized as follows: the Ministry of the Interior gave approval to the Taipei City Council to alter the urban plan for a residential area, on the minor section of the Sichi-ko and Ching-Mei region, to an industrial zone to be used as a bitumen and cement-mixing site. The applicant claimed that the Ministry*s decision, which had the consequence of disturbing the peace in the area and affecting the people*s right to life, was an administrative act that infringed upon the Constitution. The administrative court refused to rule on its substance and dismissed the application by a ruling, Ruling No.103 (Ad.Ct., 1976), despite the applicant*s institution of an appeal, re-appeal and administrative litigation to question the constitutionality of the laws cited in the Ruling. The administrative court did not regard the competent authority*s alteration of the urban plan as a person-specific administrative measure and thus barred the people from initiating administrative litigations against it by dismissing the application on procedural grounds with a ruling, without reviewing and analyzing its substance. Although the said Ruling may be inconsistent with Judgment P.T. No.192 (Ad.Ct., 1970) rendered by the same court, it only raises the question of whether the law permits application for relief. It does not raise questions of the constitutionality of the laws or orders cited by the final court judge. 
      
    • *Translated by THY Taiwan International Law Offices.
Back Top