涉外消費訴訟之國際管轄權──我國法、歐盟法與日本法之比較研究

International Jurisdiction in Consumer Disputes: A Comparative Study on Taiwanese, EU, and Japanese Law

鑑於消費者與企業經營者間之結構性地位不對等，為平等保障消費者接近使用法院之機會，我國消保法第47條、民訴法第28條第2項、第436條之9作為國際管轄權之規範基礎，明定消費關係發生地為涉外消費訴訟之國際管轄原因，並限制消費者與企業經營者所締結國際管轄合意之效力。然而，相較於同樣以實現消費者保護為原理之歐盟布魯塞爾第一之一規則，以及受該法啟發之日本民訴法，我國法上開規範內容顯有其不明與不足之處。本文乃一面引介歐盟法與日本法，一面檢討我國實務、學說現況，嘗試建構穩妥之解釋論，並附帶指出立法論之方向。

Given the structural inequality between consumers and traders, in order to safeguard equal access to court for the consumer, Article 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, Article 28(2), and Article 436-9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which serve as the legal basis for the determination of international jurisdiction, prescribe that the location where the consumer relationship happens is a ground for international jurisdiction in international consumer litigation, on the one hand, and limit the validity of forum selection agreement between consumer and trader, on the other hand. However, compared to the Brussels Ia Regulation of the European Union, which also aims to protect consumers, and the Japanese Code of Civil Procedure, inspired by the same principle, the content of the relevant provisions in Taiwanese law obviously have some ambiguities and incompleteness. Against this backdrop, this article illustrates the EU law and Japanese law while reviewing the current practices and doctrines in Taiwan. It attempts to construct appropriate solutions de lege lata to problems at hand and to indicate broad directions de lege ferenda.