論經濟、社會及文化權利國際公約適當住房權在我國之實踐：以司法院釋字第709號及其嗣後之裁判為中心

The Implementation of the Right to Adequate Housing under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: in the Context of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 709 and Its Impacts to the Subsequent Cases

釋字第709號首次援引經濟、社會及文化權利國際公約第11條第1項的「適當住房權」，並將其視為得作為限制居住自由及財產權的法律依據。此號解釋為大法官首次針對非憲法所保障的經濟、社會與文化權利國際公約權利予以討論，其重要性可見一斑。然而，此解釋卻與國際人權機構之解釋及其他締約國實踐間出現顯著差異，甚至可能影響我國對此權利之實施，導致違反公約義務的結果。本文之研究目的在釋字第709號對適當住房權首次適用的背景下，自國際人權法探討適當住房權的規範性質及義務內涵，並探究此權利在我國司法體系實施的狀況是否符合其規範目的，包括是否受釋字第709號之影響，以及在適用上所呈現之問題為何。據此，本文第貳章將探討國際法中住房權的形成背景及適當住房權的規範要素及國家義務內涵，第參章將探究此權利的可司法性及在其他國家的司法及司法以外的實踐狀況。在完整地瞭解此權利的規範內涵及實踐狀況後，本文在第肆章將探究適當住房權規範在我國國內法律制度中的規範依據，分析釋字第709號對適當住房權的認識與前二章所釐清的國際規範與實踐間是否一致，並觀察我國司法制度中關於適當住房權之案件對於此權利的解釋與適用是否正確，最後在第伍章做出本文之結論，針對適當住房權在我國司法制度的實踐狀況做出觀察。

The right to adequate housing provided in Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereinafter ‘ICESCR') is totally strange to the system of constitutional rights. It was referenced in Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 709. After the incorporation of ICESCR in Taiwan's domestic legal system, it was the first time the Constitutional Court referring to such ICESCR rights not provided in the Constitution. However, the norm of the right to adequate housing was treated as the legal basis for imposing restrictions on the people's rights to property and freedom of residence in Interpretation No. 709. This method of interpretation by the Constitutional Court deviated from the General Comments on the right to adequate housing made by the UN Committee on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the practice of other Contracting Parties of the ICESCR. This misunderstanding of the right to adequate housing in the Interpretation might lead to the failure to meet the obligations of this right.
The purposes of this article are to analyze the normative content of the right to adequate housing and the obligations of the Contracting Parties, the legal status of this right in the constitutional framework, and the normative impacts of Interpretation No. 709 on the realization of adequate housing in subsequent court cases. In the concluding chapter, observations and assessment will be given regarding the implementation of the right to adequate housing in the judicial system of Taiwan.