比例原則在香港特別行政區終審法院的適用

Application of Proportionality Principle in Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

香港終審法院適用比例原則判斷權利限制的正當性。該院對比例原則的適用經歷了從二步到三步、再到四步的演變。多數情况下，該院直接認可立法會或特區政府提出的限制目的，並肯定限制目的與限制措施之間存在合理聯繫。“不超出必要範圍”和“明顯缺乏合理依據”是第三步採納的審查標準，前者審查强度高於後者，最近的司法實踐給人一種該院偏愛後者的印象。在第四步，該院未作過價值判斷。終審法院適用比例原則時頻繁援用比較法，搭建比例原則分析框架、闡明正當目的內涵以及在第三步發展不同强度的審查標準是該院援用比較法的三種主要情形，來自英國樞密院、歐洲人權法院以及加拿大最高法院的判决的影響最為顯著。

The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal applies principle of proportionality to review the legitimacy of the limitation of rights. The application of proportionality by the Court experiences evolution from two steps to three steps, and then to four steps. In most cases, the Court accepts directly the aims of the restricting rights proposed by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Legislative Council or the Government, and recognizes that there exists a reasonable connection between purposes and restrictive measures. ''no more than necessary'' and ''manifestly without reasonable foundation'' are the review standards adopted at step three. The former intensity is higher than the latter. Recent practice gives the impression that the Court prefers the latter. In step four, the Court does not make value judgment. The Court uses frequently comparative law in the application of principle of proportionality. Building the analytical framework of proportionality, clarifying legitimate aims and developing the review standards with different intensities at step three are the three main types in which the Court uses comparative law. Decisions from the Privy Council of the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court of Canada are most influential.