不歧視原則之經濟社會權利保障效力：歐洲人權公約當代課題

The Non-Discrimination Principle in the Protection of Economic and Social Rights-A Contemporary Challenge for the European Convention on Human Rights

翁燕菁(Vivianne Yen-Ching Weng)

《歐美研究》 43卷3期 (2013/09) Pp. 637-707

https://doi.org/10.7015/JEAS.201309_43(3).0004

摘要

基於實質有效權利保障原則，經社權利滲入歐洲人權公約行之有年，而公約第14條（不歧視原則）之運用，則相對饒富新意。公約實質權利條款保障事物範圍與時俱進，第14條爰得反轉自身配件性質為救援特質，於國家積極義務範疇中，藉其「客觀且合理」之比例原則，限縮國家評斷餘地並協助排除社會政策制定之任意性。其尤與私人家庭生活及財產權相輔相成，系統性發揮經社權利保障效力。惟此救援力之開發，約以歐洲共識為界：就爭議尚巨者，宜暫藉實質權利條款之但書為被告國保留裁量權。凡此應屬歐洲人權法院對公約當代課題之務實回應。

關鍵字

不歧視原則 ； 經濟社會權利可裁判性 ； 動態解釋 ； 權利有效保障 ； 差別待遇

並列摘要

The cause of advancing economic and social rights via the European Convention on Human Rights has long benefited from the principle of effective rights, while the use of Article 14 (non-discrimination principle) in this regard seems to have recently come into fashion. Initially of ancillary importance, Article 14 may come to the fore when the fact at issue falls within the scope of certain substantive provisions of the Convention. For instance, in the fields of economic and social rights, State Parties normally enjoy a large margin of appreciation under the Convention. Under Article 14, the Strasbourg Court has the authority to compel State Parties to defend differential treatment on the basis of objective and reasonable grounds, even on issues of economic and social rights. That said, invoking this Article against State Parties may overreach the understood European consensus. In the absence of some minimum common denominators, the Strasbourg judges can give priority to a substantive provision that leaves greater latitude to the defending State. Such pragmatism should be considered a prudent approach to contemporary challenges to the Convention.

並列關鍵字

Non-Discrimination Principle ； Justiciability of Economic and Social Rights ； Dynamic Interpretation ； Effectiveness of Rights ； Difference in Treatment

參考文獻

吳志光(2012)。歐洲聯盟加入歐洲人權公約的意義與影響─以歐洲人權法院面對之問題為核心。台灣法學雜誌。195，67-79。

李建良(2008)。自由、平等、尊嚴（上）─人的尊嚴作為憲法價值的思想根源與基本課題。月旦法學雜誌。153，185-207。

翁燕菁(2011)。私人與家庭生活的歐洲共識與善良風俗─《歐洲人權公約》體系求同存異之道。中研院法學期刊。9，179-269。

許耀明(2008)。歐盟關於結婚權與組成家庭權之保護：從歐洲人權法院與歐洲法院相關案例談起。歐美研究。38(4)，637-669。

湯德宗 (2011)。大法官釋字第694 號解釋湯大法官德宗部分協同暨部分不同意見書。(Tang, D. [2011]. Partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion of Justice Tang annexed to the Interpretation No. 694 of the Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan. Retrieved March 31, 2012, from http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/uploadfile/C100/694 部分協同部分不同意見書_湯大法官德宗_.pdf)