歐洲人權公約第五條──以歐洲人權法院裁判為借鏡，檢討我國羈押與人身拘束制度

ECHR Art. 5--Examine the Native System of Detention on Remand and Restriction of Liberty by Way of Instancing ECHR Judgments

系所名稱：法律學研究所
學位別：碩士
畢業學年：96年
指導教授：林鈺雄
這篇論文主要有兩大部分，首先，是歐洲人權公約第5條以及歐洲人權法院裁判的部分；其次，從歐洲跨國基準的角度來看國內羈押以及人身拘束體系的部分，並提出實務以及立法上的建議。歐洲人權公約第5條，可以分為幾個部分：人身拘束的實質原因（第5條第（1）項）、人身拘束的一般程序保障（第5條第（2）項、第（4）項）、人身拘束的特別程序保障（第5條第（3）項），以及賠償規定（第5條第（5）項）。本文引用包括Guzzardi案、Vagrancy案、Brogan案、Pauwels案、Neumeister案等標竿判決來觀察人權公約的發展。另外，幾個本文研究的重要論點，包括了公約第5條第（3）項以及第（4）項的程序保障。關於公約第5條第（3）項的羈押期間，雖然人權法院並沒有指出特定的限期，本文統計從1968年到2008年4月15日之前的相關判決，認為羈押期間對於人權法院的判決有所影響；並且進一步觀察德國和歐洲人權法院在這一部分的互動。至於公約第5條第4項的一般程序保障，本文從歐洲古典的自由以及英國13世紀大憲章所規定的「人身保護制度」探求，也指出了公約在現代意義下所賦予的程序保障，這些保障要素包括了閱卷權、言詞審理以及受法律協助權。此外，橫跨公約第5條以及第6條的中立性與獨立性要求，本文認為並不足以完全支撐人身拘束自由所有決定的面向。就我國法的部分，雖然憲法第8條規定了法官保留和提審權利，但是橫跨公法和和刑事訴訟的問題，始終無法解決；立法以及實務上的運作，甚至忽略了這兩個基本的要求。就此，本文先從憲法層次探討，並解決包括「正當程序」與「拘捕前置」在我國法上發展的獨有困境；其次，對於刑事法部分探討，認為目前我國羈押實務運作上在繼續性羈押的部分欠缺說理，實務應盡快改善；最後，就其他法律層面探討，一般性的人身保護始終無法落實，透過憲法第8條的解釋或者是立法的運作，都是解決的策略。本文也在最後提出提審法以及刑事訴訟法羈押制度的具體立法建議。

This paper mainly has two major parts, first, is the European Convention of Human Rights as well as the Judgments of European Court of Human rights; Next, from the European transnational standard, inspects domestic system of detention on remand and restriction of liberty, then proposes suggestion to the practice as well as the legislation. ECHR Art. 5, may divide into several parts: the essential reason of detention(5-1), general procedure safeguard of detention(5-2, 5-4), special procedure safeguard of detention on remand(5-3), as well as the compensation stipulation if violating Art, 5(5-5). This article quotes including cases of Guzzardi, Vagrancy, Brogan, Pauwels, Neumeister to observe the development of ECHR. Moreover, important arguments of this article are procedural safeguard of ECHR 5-3, 5-4. Takes into the period about the duration of detention on remand, although the human rights court has not pointed out specificly deadline, this article calculated correlation Judgments from 1968 to 15 April 2008, thought the duration of detention on remand has influenced ECHR Judgments; and further observed interactions of German and ECHR. As for the general procedure safeguard of ECHR Art. 5-4, this article searched European classical meanings of freedom and Habeas Corpus of Magna Carta of England since 13th, pointed out ECHR procedural safeguard which entrusts with under the modern significance, those safeguard essential factor included right to access to the files, right to oral trial as well as right to legal assistance. In addition, this article thought that the request of impatrality and independence which cross Art.5 and Art. 6 cannot support all part of deciding whether one should be detained or not.As to native laws, although Constitution Art. 8 had stipulated that only the court had power to detain persons and right to Habeas Corpus, the question still is unable to be solved both in Constitution and criminal procedure; in legislation as well as practice operation, these two basic requests has even been neglected. In light of this, this article firstly discussed under constitution, solved the unique, difficult questions including “due process of law” and “principle of essential arrest before detention”; secondly, discussed under criminal laws, and thought that native practice of detention on remand has been short of reasons in the part of continuous detention; and last, under other laws, general protection of pernal liberty has been always unable to carry out perfectly, strategy could be made through ways of appropriate explanation of constitution Art. 8 or legislative operation. Finally, this article also proposed concrete legislative suggestion of the law of Habeas Corpus as well as the system of detention on remand.