國立高雄大學圖資館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

圖資館首頁

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

公共設施民營化後因設置或管理有欠缺之國家賠償責任 = The Study...

國立高雄大學政治法律學系碩士班

公共設施民營化後因設置或管理有欠缺之國家賠償責任 = The Study upon the Liability of the State Compensation regarding to the Construction and Management of the Public Facilities after Privatization

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,印刷品 : 單行本
並列題名:	The Study upon the Liability of the State Compensation regarding to the Construction and Management of the Public Facilities after Privatization
作者:	陳彥伶,
其他團體作者:	國立高雄大學
出版地:	[高雄市]
出版者:	撰者;
出版年:	2009[民98]
面頁冊數:	211面圖，表 : 30公分;
標題:	促進民間參與公共建設法
標題:	Act for Promotion of Private Participation in In
電子資源:	http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/29746729938497901489
附註:	參考書目：面116-123
附註:	指導教授：賴恆盈
摘要註:	於1980年代末期全球興起「民營化」（Privatization）的浪潮，我國也加入此潮流實行民營化政策；現今民營化不僅包括公營事業民營化，更涉及國家公共服務以契約外包方式提供。準此，為落實此政策，法治上有公營事業移轉民營條例及促進民間參與公共建設法等相關法規來配合。然而，本文乃在現行普遍接受民營化之環境下，思考實行民營化後相關公有公共設施瑕疵之國家賠償責任，是否因此而有退縮。關於公共設施設置或管理有欠缺造成人民權利上之損害而言，乃是屬於侵權行為態樣，於法律之請求權基礎上，有民法上侵權行為法與行政法上之國家賠償法請求權，可滋救濟。然而，在法制發展上係先有侵權行為之損害賠償制度，再演進到國家賠償責任；因此，本於追本溯源之論述，本文乃先就侵權行為法制之理論基礎先行探討。於了解理論之演進後，再來研究各該法條於構成要件上之適用。關於公共設施設置或管理有欠缺造成人民權利上之損害，受害人民關於民法侵權行為適用上，有民法第184條及第191條，可以適用，此部分本文即討論法律上適用關係。另則，關於公共設施設置或管理有欠缺造成人民權利損害之國家賠償責任部分，本文將討論國家賠償法第2條及第3條之適用。再則，本論文乃關心，公共設施民營化後因設置或管理有欠缺造成人民權利損害之國家賠償責任，係關注「公共設施」民營化前與後，兩者不同時期之差異，而受此兩時期差異直接影響者，乃屬公共設施之性質。職之，因民營化前、後，所產生之公共設施性質變動有關議題，及落入本論文所欲研究之範圍中。是則，國家賠償法第3條係關於，公有公共設施因設置或管理有欠缺之國家賠償責任，在該條討論上，區分為公共設施民營化前因設置或管理有欠缺之國家賠償法第3條適用，與公共設施民營化後因設置或管理有欠缺之國家賠償法第3條適用，兩種情況來討論。至於國家賠償法第2條之討論上，則不作此區分為。因為，國家賠償法第2條能否成立，其核心概念在於公務員是否具備職務義務；然而，會對職務義務產生直接影響者，乃係法令之變更；因之，公共設施性質之變更，對國家賠償法第2條於適用上，不會有所影響，則在討論上作區，即無區分必要。最後，關於公共設施民營化後因設置或管理有欠缺之國家賠償法第3條適用，本文以促進民間參與公共建設法所揭櫫之五種公共設施態樣（分別為BOT、BTO、ROT、OT及BOO）加上，委託經營管理街道家具及認養公共設施，七種型態之公共設施，分別來討論其性質，分析其性質與民營化前公共設施之差異，進而討論法律解釋上，是否能有國家賠償法第3條之適用。本文計畫以此種論述方式，釐清公共設施民營化後，國家賠償法第3條適用上，是否有遭遇困境，從而有修法之必要。 The trends of privatization emerged in the late 1980s,our nation caught the trend and implementing the policy of privatization. The policy of privatization not only including privatizing the state enterprise but also letting the private sector to provide public service by using contract. Thus there laws to coordinate this policy(ex. Statute of Privatization of Government-Owned Enterprises and Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects…etc) ,however, this article discusses whether the state compensation has retreat under the circumstance of privatization. Besides, regarding to the issues, firstly this article tries to understand theory behind the State Compensation Law and the theory of tort that concerning the default of public facility. This article believes that understanding these theories can enhance interpreting articles that in need.Regarding to matters of the defection regarding the development and management of public facilities that caused damage, the cause of action among the Civil Code is article §184 and §191, which this article will discuss how to interpret it.In addition, this article focus on the public facilities after privatization, and will compare the difference of the facilities before privatization and after privatization. Thus the article concerning the liability of state compensation lied on the State Compensation Law §3, which also concerns the nature of the public facilities. Furthermore, this article investigate issues by dividing into two situations, that is the method of interpreting State Compensation Law §3 upon public facilities before privatization. And the other situation is the method of interpreting State Compensation Law §3 upon public facilities after privatization. Moreover, the default of public facilities also relate to the interpretation of State Compensation Law §2, however, this article do not divide situation during discussing, because §2 concerning duty of care not the nature of public facilities.Finally, this article survey on public facilities such as OT. BTO.ROT. BOT. BOO, which named under the “Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects and public facilities like mandated to operate and managing public facilities, operate and managing the street furniture voluntarily, to investigate whether there are difficulties when interpreting State Compensation Law §3, if does then amending the law is necessary.

公共設施民營化後因設置或管理有欠缺之國家賠償責任 = The Study upon the Liability of the State Compensation regarding to the Construction and Management of the Public Facilities after Privatization
陳, 彥伶

公共設施民營化後因設置或管理有欠缺之國家賠償責任 = The Study upon the Liability of the State Compensation regarding to the Construction and Management of the Public Facilities after Privatization / 陳彥伶撰 - [高雄市] : 撰者, 2009[民98]. - 211面 ; 圖，表 ; 30公分.
參考書目：面116-123指導教授：賴恆盈.
促進民間參與公共建設法Act for Promotion of Private Participation in In

公共設施民營化後因設置或管理有欠缺之國家賠償責任 = The Study upon the Liability of the State Compensation regarding to the Construction and Management of the Public Facilities after Privatization
LDR:07000nam a2200277 4500 001 220184
005 20170214090632.0
009 220184
010 0 $b 平裝
010 0 $b 精裝
100 $a 20170214y2009 k y0chiy09 ea
101 1 $a chi $d chi $d eng
102 $a tw
105 $a ak am 000yy
200 1 $a 公共設施民營化後因設置或管理有欠缺之國家賠償責任 $d The Study upon the Liability of the State Compensation regarding to the Construction and Management of the Public Facilities after Privatization $z eng $f 陳彥伶撰
210 $a [高雄市] $c 撰者 $d 2009[民98]
215 0 $a 211面 $c 圖，表 $d 30公分
300 $a 參考書目：面116-123
300 $a 指導教授：賴恆盈
328 $a 碩士論文--國立高雄大學政治法律學系碩士班
330 $a 於1980年代末期全球興起「民營化」（Privatization）的浪潮，我國也加入此潮流實行民營化政策；現今民營化不僅包括公營事業民營化，更涉及國家公共服務以契約外包方式提供。準此，為落實此政策，法治上有公營事業移轉民營條例及促進民間參與公共建設法等相關法規來配合。然而，本文乃在現行普遍接受民營化之環境下，思考實行民營化後相關公有公共設施瑕疵之國家賠償責任，是否因此而有退縮。關於公共設施設置或管理有欠缺造成人民權利上之損害而言，乃是屬於侵權行為態樣，於法律之請求權基礎上，有民法上侵權行為法與行政法上之國家賠償法請求權，可滋救濟。然而，在法制發展上係先有侵權行為之損害賠償制度，再演進到國家賠償責任；因此，本於追本溯源之論述，本文乃先就侵權行為法制之理論基礎先行探討。於了解理論之演進後，再來研究各該法條於構成要件上之適用。關於公共設施設置或管理有欠缺造成人民權利上之損害，受害人民關於民法侵權行為適用上，有民法第184條及第191條，可以適用，此部分本文即討論法律上適用關係。另則，關於公共設施設置或管理有欠缺造成人民權利損害之國家賠償責任部分，本文將討論國家賠償法第2條及第3條之適用。再則，本論文乃關心，公共設施民營化後因設置或管理有欠缺造成人民權利損害之國家賠償責任，係關注「公共設施」民營化前與後，兩者不同時期之差異，而受此兩時期差異直接影響者，乃屬公共設施之性質。職之，因民營化前、後，所產生之公共設施性質變動有關議題，及落入本論文所欲研究之範圍中。是則，國家賠償法第3條係關於，公有公共設施因設置或管理有欠缺之國家賠償責任，在該條討論上，區分為公共設施民營化前因設置或管理有欠缺之國家賠償法第3條適用，與公共設施民營化後因設置或管理有欠缺之國家賠償法第3條適用，兩種情況來討論。至於國家賠償法第2條之討論上，則不作此區分為。因為，國家賠償法第2條能否成立，其核心概念在於公務員是否具備職務義務；然而，會對職務義務產生直接影響者，乃係法令之變更；因之，公共設施性質之變更，對國家賠償法第2條於適用上，不會有所影響，則在討論上作區，即無區分必要。最後，關於公共設施民營化後因設置或管理有欠缺之國家賠償法第3條適用，本文以促進民間參與公共建設法所揭櫫之五種公共設施態樣（分別為BOT、BTO、ROT、OT及BOO）加上，委託經營管理街道家具及認養公共設施，七種型態之公共設施，分別來討論其性質，分析其性質與民營化前公共設施之差異，進而討論法律解釋上，是否能有國家賠償法第3條之適用。本文計畫以此種論述方式，釐清公共設施民營化後，國家賠償法第3條適用上，是否有遭遇困境，從而有修法之必要。 The trends of privatization emerged in the late 1980s,our nation caught the trend and implementing the policy of privatization. The policy of privatization not only including privatizing the state enterprise but also letting the private sector to provide public service by using contract. Thus there laws to coordinate this policy(ex. Statute of Privatization of Government-Owned Enterprises and Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects…etc) ,however, this article discusses whether the state compensation has retreat under the circumstance of privatization. Besides, regarding to the issues, firstly this article tries to understand theory behind the State Compensation Law and the theory of tort that concerning the default of public facility. This article believes that understanding these theories can enhance interpreting articles that in need.Regarding to matters of the defection regarding the development and management of public facilities that caused damage, the cause of action among the Civil Code is article §184 and §191, which this article will discuss how to interpret it.In addition, this article focus on the public facilities after privatization, and will compare the difference of the facilities before privatization and after privatization. Thus the article concerning the liability of state compensation lied on the State Compensation Law §3, which also concerns the nature of the public facilities. Furthermore, this article investigate issues by dividing into two situations, that is the method of interpreting State Compensation Law §3 upon public facilities before privatization. And the other situation is the method of interpreting State Compensation Law §3 upon public facilities after privatization. Moreover, the default of public facilities also relate to the interpretation of State Compensation Law §2, however, this article do not divide situation during discussing, because §2 concerning duty of care not the nature of public facilities.Finally, this article survey on public facilities such as OT. BTO.ROT. BOT. BOO, which named under the “Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects and public facilities like mandated to operate and managing public facilities, operate and managing the street furniture voluntarily, to investigate whether there are difficulties when interpreting State Compensation Law §3, if does then amending the law is necessary.
510 1 $a The Study upon the Liability of the State Compensation regarding to the Construction and Management of the Public Facilities after Privatization
610 0 $a 促進民間參與公共建設法 $a 公共設施 $a 國家賠償法 $a 委外 $a 街道家具
610 1 $a Act for Promotion of Private Participation in In $a Contract out $a Public facility $a State Compensation Law $a Street furniture
681 $a 008M/0019 $b 382101 7502 $v 2007年版
700 1 $a 陳 $b 彥伶 $4 撰 $3 350190
712 0 2 $a 國立高雄大學 $b 政治法律學系碩士班 $3 166052
801 0 $a tw $b NUK $c 20091020 $g CCR
856 7 $2 http $u http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/29746729938497901489