第三人近用法庭卷證資料權利與個人資料保護的調和

The Right for Pubic Access to Court Records and the Protection of Personal Data

2016-2017年的司法改革國是會議曾決議：「建議司法院、法務部研議於偵查及審判程序終結後，是否開放第三人申請錄影、錄音或卷證及其相關法制」。在比較法上，第三人近用法庭卷證資料，具有久遠的歷史，能讓民眾以較為理性、客觀的方式，親近法院的實際運作。尤其，法院書狀、卷證資料電子化的腳步，已經慢慢地展開|法院紀錄的電子化，絕非只是便利相關利害關係人或法院而已，在法院資訊公開的層次上，也具有重大意義。特別是在「大數據」時代，電子資訊的傳遞、公開，相較於紙本資訊，可以跨越地理、時間的限制，降低申請公開的成本，但伴隨而來的資訊累積、組合、比對，二次利用……等個人資訊隱私保護問題，則不容小覷。本文首先探討第三人近用卷證資料權利的理論及法律（包括憲法）基礎為何。緊接著則針對第三人近用卷證資料所可能產生的隱私保護及其他問題進行研究。最後，參酌國外實務與學理，就司法公開透明與個人隱私保護的平衡，提出本文的看法與建議。

One of the conclusions reached by the 2016-2017 National Conference on Judicial Reform is to ask the Judicial Yuan and Ministry of Justice to study the feasibility and legal framework of allowing public access to court records (including audio/video recordings and various documents submitted by the parties or created by the courts) after the prosecution and/or trial proceedings are ended. In some foreign countries, public access to court records has a long history, and it has been regarded as a more rational and objective way for the general public to closely observe the operations of the court. As court records have gradually been digitized, the ease of using these electronic records not only benefits relevant parties and courts, but also has important ramifications on public access to information held by the courts. Comparing to the traditional paper-based access regime, electronic access has dramatically lowered the costs of obtaining court records, and geographic and time limits are no longer obstacles for people who wish to access this information. However, in this big data era, the information privacy issues caused by the easy accumulation, combination, analysis, and re-use of electronic court records should not be ignored. This article will first explore the theoretical and legal bases (including the potential constitutional basis) for public access to court records. It will then study the privacy and other issues (such as witness protection, rehabilitation, access to justice) associated with such public access regime. Special attention will be given to the different levels of impacts on personal data protection causedby different access models (i.e., the traditional paper-based access model, electronic access model, and the mixed access model). Finally, by taking reference to foreign practices and theories, this article will offer its own views and suggestions regarding how we can strike a proper balance between open justice and the protection of individual privacy.