侵權行為損害賠償請求權長期消滅時效之起算時點——從歐洲人權法院判決之觀點出發

The Starting Point for the Calculation of the Long-Term Limitation Period (Dies a Quo) Applicable to Tort Claims for Damages: In Light of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

人民享有接近使用法院之權利，即請求法院審理民事紛爭並作成裁判之權利。消滅時效制度係單純僅以一定時間之經過而作為法院拒絕實質審理當事人民事權利義務之事由，本質上具有限制接近使用法院權利之效果，自應以基於正當目的，且採取之手段與達成之目的間具有合比例性為前提。
消滅時效制度之目的旨在確保法律確定性與安定性，固有其正當目的，惟消滅時效所造成之限制，仍不得造成接近使用法院權利本質上之侵害。歐洲人權法院已發展出以是否具有「合理期待權利人於客觀上得發現損害之可能性」乙節，作為認定消滅時效制度是否具有合比例性之判斷標準。從而，倘若於請求權人不知道受有損害之事實、或因疾病具有潛伏期而對損害毫無認識之情形下，法院未考量上開情節而逕以請求權罹於消滅時效為由駁回當事人之請求者，應認為欠缺合比例性而構成對當事人接近使用法院權利之侵害。
我國法院於中石化污染案與RCA污染案中，均將民法第197條第1項關於十年之長期消滅時效起算時點自「有侵權行為時」，解釋為自損害發生時起算，可「實際且有效」保障請求權人接近適用法院之權利，且與法律確定性無違，值得認同。

Everyone has the right of access to a court, namely, the right to have a claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court. Since statutory limitation (extinctive prescription) takes effect solely through the expiry of a prescribed time period, thereby precluding judicial examination of individuals’civil rights and obligations, it constitutes a restriction on the right of access to a court. Accordingly, any such limitation must pursue a legitimate aim and satisfy the requirement of a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the objective sought to be achieved.
The statute of limitations pursues the legitimate aim of ensuring legal certainty and stability. However, such a limitation must not impair the very essence of the right of access to a court. In assessing the proportionality of a limitation period, the European Court of Human Rights has considered whether the claimant could reasonably have been expected to assess the damage sustained within the prescribed time. Where the claimant is unaware of the damage sustained, or where the harm remains undisclosed due to the latent nature of a disease, the failure of domestic courts to take such circumstances into account and to dismiss the claim solely on the ground that the limitation period has expired may amount to a disproportionate restriction and thus a violation of the right of access to a court.
In both the China Petrochemical Development Corporation Pollution Case and the RCA Pollution Case, the courts in Taiwan interpreted Article 197§1 of the Civil Code—governing the ten-year long-term limitation period for tort claims—as providing that the limitation period begins to run from the moment the claim becomes due, that is, from the time when the damage occurred. This interpretation ensured that the claimants’right of access to a court was practical and effective. The courts’approach is not open to criticism under the principle of legal certainty.