我國為預防開發行為對環境有不良影響，於立法上訂定環境影響評估制度，此乃國家對開發產生的污染所採取的預防措施，也是環境法學界所熱烈討論的；但在我國受有污染的人民對於環評本身及其程序有所不服時，相關訴訟制度的討論則付之闕如，與此有關的實證法則規定於環評法第23條第9項，在個案中法院也不乏使用本條為判決。然無論個案是否適用本條的公民訴訟條款，法的解釋適用仍應與既有的法規範相配合。是以，應對環評審查結論做出定性，才能精確地適用法律，並避免破壞我國長久以來苦心建立的行政法制。故本文將回顧當前實務見解，並從學理對相關問題進行討論，以之檢討實務的運用情形是否妥當。

In Taiwan, legislator made Environmental Assessment Act for the task which prevents the pollution. When someone wants to take development on somewhere, this is a measure that state adopt to prevent the pollution. In environmental law, it also has been discussed hotly by academic lawyer. In our country, if citizen refuse to obey the environmental assessment conclusion or its procedure, which the development will make citizen to suffer the pollution. The relevant discussion in jurisprudence is absent. The relevant substantive law could be found at Environmental Assessment Act §23Ⅸ. But the premise is that we should return to the jurisprudence of general theory of administrative law, and clarify the nature of environmental assessment conclusion. I hope the points proposed in my essay can avoid destroying the system of administrative law that we have established hardly for a long time. Therefore, after reviewing the court's opinion, I will discuss relevant issues from the general theory of administrative law, and examine whether courts apply law appropriate or not.