私法關係下的公共利益與隱私保護：解析運動禁藥管制的行蹤報告制度

Public interests and privacy protection under the private relationship: Analysis of the whereabouts requirement in anti-doping control

何念修(Nien-Hsiu Ho) ； 陳宏志(Hung-Chih Chen)

《中華體育季刊》 36卷1期 (2022/03) Pp. 83-92

https://doi.org/10.6223/qcpe.202203_36(1).0008

摘要

運動禁藥管制措施與隱私權保護息息相關。尤其運動禁藥管制措施的其中一環：運動員行蹤報告制度，近年來多有運動員或學者主張該制度有侵害運動員隱私權的疑慮，惟2018年歐洲人權法院的判決認為該制度乃管制運動禁藥所必要之措施，並無違反歐洲人權公約第8條所保護之隱私權，本文將以此判決為例，一窺行蹤報告制度與隱私權保護之衡平議題。又經檢視運動禁藥管制之實務，我國雖立法要求運動員應接受運動禁藥管制，但執行管制措施者為民間團體之中華運動禁藥防制基金會，使運動禁藥管制仰賴「民間團體」與「運動員」間之私法關係。既然運動禁藥管制措施中，行蹤報告制度對運動員的隱私權影響重大，本文希透過國際文件、歐洲實務案例，探討運動禁藥管制措施與個人隱私保護之間，如何衡平與兼顧；並據此在我國法下提出研析意見與因應建議，若行蹤報告制度欲維護之價值屬於公共利益之一環，已不適宜依賴私法關係，而有完備相關法規範之必要，俾供主管機關或運動產業從業人員參考。

關鍵字

世界運動禁藥管制機構 ； 運動禁藥管制 ； 隱私 ； 公共利益 ； 行蹤報告制度

並列摘要

The anti-doping control measures are closely related to privacy protection. In particular, the whereabouts rules published in World Anti-Doping Code, has been discussed with concerns about infringing the privacy of athletes in recent years. However, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in 2018 considered that the whereabouts rule is necessary to anti-doping and has no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This article takes this judgment as an example to see the balance between the whereabouts reporting system and the protection of privacy. Also, this article reviews doping control in Taiwan and finds that the legislation provides only vague rule that athletes shall comply with the doping control measures, but the measures are operated by a private entity Chinese Taipei Anti-Doping Agency (CTADA) with no solid legal basis. Therefore, the anti-doping is relying on a private relationship from legal perspective. Considering the whereabouts rules has a significant impact on the privacy of athletes, this article would like to introduce the international documents and the case of European Court of Human Rights to see how to balance anti-doping and privacy protection. Furthermore, under Taiwan's legislative framework, if there are important public interests hiding in the anti-doping and the whereabouts rules, is it still appropriate to rely on private relationship to present the public value? Or if it is necessary to complete relevant laws and regulations? This article would like to put forward research and analysis opinions, as well as the corresponding suggestions for the reference of competent authorities or practitioners in the sports industry.

並列關鍵字

World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) ； anti-doping ； privacy ； public interests ； whereabouts requirement system

參考文獻

吳建輝 (2013)。歐盟作為規範性權力：以國際刑事法秩序之建立為例。歐美研究，43(3)，537-593。http://doi.org/10.7015/JEAS. 201309_43(3).0002

黃郁婷、湯添進 (2015)。世界運動禁藥管制機構(WADA) 之權力探源。中華體育季刊，29(2)，161-170。https://dx.doi.org/10.3966/ 102473002015092902010

Casini, L. (2009). Global hybrid public-private bodies: The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). International Organization Law Review, 6, 439-441. http://doi.org/10.1163/ 157237409X477644

Siekmann, R. C. (2012). Anti-doping law in sport: The hybrid character of WADA and the human rights of athletes in doping cases (proportionality principle). In Siekmann (Ed.),Introduction to International and European Sports Law (pp. 313-333). Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-852-1_9

洪義筌 (2008)。從社會正義論國家管制運動員違規用藥之教育蘊義 [未出版之碩士論文]。國立臺灣師範大學。