公害案件中侵权责任之消灭时效问题

Extinctive Prescription on Tort Liability of Public Nuisance

在现代之公害或环境污染案件中,被害人依侵权责任请求损害赔偿时,除遭遇举证之困难外,有时更由于有害因子在被害人体内潜伏相当长之期间后,始产生身体健康受损之具体结果,如认为其侵权行为损害赔偿请求权之时效自侵权行为发生时起算,则其请求权多已罹于时效。本文选取两则台湾地区'最高法院'近年来关于公害案件侵权责任之代表性判决,简要介绍台湾地区'最高法院'如何透过侵权行为之弹性认定及诚信原则之运用,避免被害人因时效制度而丧失权利。此外,在一则欧洲人权法院之知名判决中,法院认为,当石棉此种潜伏期长达数十年之物质成为致病因子时,瑞士法院以十年之绝对期间排除被害人之损害赔偿请求权,乃侵害其接近使用法院之权利。此判决对消灭时效制度产生相当之冲击,引发欧洲学界之讨论,本文亦一并介绍之。

In modern cases of public nuisance or environmental pollution,except the problems of burdens of proof,victims also face difficulties in extinctive prescription when claiming for damages,especially due to the long latent period for the hazardous element hidden in the victims’body to cause damage.Consequently,victims would lose the case because of the claim extinguished by prescription,if it is deemed to have the extinctive prescription start from the moment when the wrongful act was committed.This article chooses two remarkable public nuisance cases issued by the'Supreme Court'of Taiwan to observe how the'Supreme Court'of Taiwan makes the decision in favor of the victims to prevent the victims from losing their rights due to the prescription system by utilizing the flexible determination of infringement and principle of good faith.Moreover,in a notable judgment of European Court of Human Rights,denying the right to claim damages due to ten year absolute limitation period was deemed as against the right to access to court when the latent period of asbestos-caused damage is usually more than several decades.This article will introduce the judgment as mentioned above,which has imposed a significant impact on the theory of extinctive prescription in Europe.