以「名」為本的司法監督？──裁判書公開自然人姓名之檢討

Judicial Supervision Based on‘Names’? : A Review on the Disclosure of Natural Persons’Names in Judicial Decisions

法院組織法第83條除規定裁判書公開，亦規定原則上當事人之姓名隨裁判書公開，使得個人資訊隱私及資訊自主權有受侵害之虞。在監督司法與當事人權利的拉扯之間，是否能有更為細緻平衡的作法？本文透過整理裁判書公開制度之演進；釐清比較法上裁判書公開或不公開的作法、裁判書公開姓名涉及之基本權干預，以及裁判書公開自然人姓名所欲追求之功能，認為為發揮裁判書公開制度之制度功能所必要之姓名公開有其範圍，現行法恐有過度侵害人民權利之虞。基此，本文參酌學說見解與聯合國核心人權公約個人申訴機制之化名模式，提出「申請─類型化」之二階段處理模式，並佐以對顯名公開之裁判書，於相當期間後可由當事人聲請匿名之調和機制。

Article 83 of the Court Organization Act not only stipulates the public publication of judicial decisions, but also requires the names of the parties to be generally disclosed with the judgments. This provision raised concerns about the potential infringement of fundamental rights such as the right of privacy and information autonomy. Amidst the tension between supervising the judiciary and safeguarding the rights of the parties involved, is there a more nuanced and appropriate balancing approach? Through reviewing the evolution of the publication system of judgments, clarifying comparative legal practices of disclosing or not disclosing judicial decisions, discussing the basic rights infringed by revealing names in judgments, and the functions pursued by disclosing the names of natural persons in judgments, this article states that there should be a defined and limited scope for the name disclosure of judgments. Thus, Article 83 of the Court Organization Act may excessively infringe on rights. Based on the former arguments, the article refers to academic perspectives and the individual complaint mechanism model of the United Nations Core Human Rights Convention. It proposes a two-stage processing model of“Application - Typification,”along with a reconciliation mechanism allowing parties to apply for anonymity after a reasonable period for openly named judgments.