| 篇名 |
European Pluralism on the Protection of Fundamental Rights: The European Convention on Human Rights vis-à-vis the EU Legal Order |
| 並列篇名 |
歐洲多層級基本權利保障：歐洲人權公約與歐盟法秩序間的關係 |
| 作者 |
范繼增 |
| 中文摘要 |
本文在歐洲多層級基本權利保障框架下具體研究歐洲人權公約與歐盟法間的互動關係。目前，儘管歐盟第2/13號意見暫時中止了歐盟加入歐洲人權公約的進程，但是為了確保成員國能夠有效地保障基本權利，兩個歐洲組織仍然需要合作。上個世紀70年，歐盟法院為了彌補歐盟尚沒有保障基本權利法典的缺陷，其將《歐洲人權公約》作為審查歐盟規章和法令的尺規。此後，歐盟法院將該公約視為歐盟法原則的一部分並且稱其為「對歐盟法秩序具有重要意義」。《馬斯特里赫特條約》和《里斯本條約》都再次確認了上述的判決結果。此外，《歐盟基本權利憲章》幾乎移植了所有公約權利，並且歐盟法院在其判決中也大量援引人權法院的判決。自從歐洲人權法院將公約定義為「歐洲公共秩序的憲法性文件後」，人權法院悄悄地將其管轄權伸向了歐盟事務。前者經常以公約標準審查締約國在履行歐盟法義務時是否違反了公約的規定。此外，人權法院經常用國際法或者比較法的途徑確定是否在基本權利保障領域中存在共識。因此，人權法院會將歐盟法條和判決作為相關性法院，並且以歐盟人權立法發展為導向解釋歐洲人權公約。 |
| 英文摘要 |
This article focuses on the EU legal order vis-à-vis the European Convention on Human Rights (thereafter ECHR) in the context of European multilevel mechanism on the protection of fundamental rights. Though the EU Opinion 2/13 has temporarily suspended the process of EU accession to the ECHR, these two European regimes still have to accommodate each other in order not to confuse their common member states. As to fill the EU’s gaps in the aspects of the lack of competence regarding the protection of fundamental human rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union (thereafter CJEU) has to regard the ECHR as one of the lawful criteria for examining the conventionality of EU Regulations and Directives in the specific field of human rights after the judgment of Rutili delivered in 1975. In the 1980s, the European Convention was not only treated as one source of general principle of the EU law provided by the several Luxembourg decisions, but it was the only “special significance” for the European Community law. This Luxembourg jurisprudence was then recognized by the authors of Maastricht Treaty in 1992 and Lisbon Treaty in 2009. Apart from those, the drafters of the European Charter on Fundamental rights (thereafter EU Charter) borrowed almost all the Convention rights by five technical approaches. Moreover, the Luxembourg judges also referred to Strasbourg case-law under multiple motivations in its dozens of decisions. Ever since the Strasbourg Court defined the European Convention as “the constitutional document in the European public order” in the field of human rights, the Strasbourg judges have been slowly extending its jurisdictional competence to the EU jurisdiction. The Strasbourg Court quite often substantively scrutinizes whether the EU law application by the member states has been compatible with national duty under the European Convention. On the other side, Strasbourg judges usually identify the scope of consensus on the reliance of comparative and international law. Thus, the EU Directives, Luxembourg case-law and the EU Charter have always been invoked as relevant resources or evidence by the Strasbourg Court for interpreting Convention rights and shaping the European Convention in line with the development of human rights legislation in the external legal territory. |
| 起訖頁 |
333-382 |
| 關鍵詞 |
第2/13號意見，判例法移植、基本權利移植、間接性管轄、EU Opinion 2/13、Case Law Borrowing |
| 刊名 |
National Taiwan University Law Review |
| 出版單位 |
國立臺灣大學法律學系
|
| 期數 |
201609 (11:2期) |
| DOI |
10.3966/181263242016091102003 複製DOI DOI申請 |
| QRCode |
 |
| |
