訴訟權保障與民事訴訟－以大法官關於“訴訟權”之解釋為中心

關於憲法第十六條之訴訟權，大法官已陸續透過不同之解釋，詮釋其意涵，而包括適時審判請求權、權利有效保護請求權、聽審請求權、程序上平等權、公正程序（正當程序）請求權。訴訟權中之各項權利，應平衡兼顧。聽審請求權之保障係以適時審判請求權爲其界限；反之，適時審判請求權之保障亦不應害於聽審請求權。爲此，法院適時、適當之闡明，可明確化當事人提出攻擊防禦方法的行爲責任，及避免突襲性裁判之發生。關於訴訟權侵害之救濟，就適時審判請求權而言，其具有難以事後救濟之特性。因此，重要的是，法院應致力於防止發生程序延滯而未能於適當時期作成裁判。訴訟權之侵害，通常多係因法院之裁判行爲而生。在我國現行法下，既不能向大法官聲請違憲審查，又將民事訴訟法之審級救濟參考德國民訴法之修正而予以嚴格化，卻忽略德國另有配套之聽審異議制度，甚至憲法訴願之可能，即可能致使當事人之訴訟權受侵害時，欠缺救濟途徑。因此，宜採合憲性解釋，就判決而言，如涉及訴訟權之侵害，宜寬予許可上訴第三審。退而求其次，則應使當事人得循再審途徑予以救濟。就裁定而言，第二審法院之裁定如屬第一次裁定，卻不得抗告時，得類推適用有關異議之規定，使當事人有救濟之機會。在立法論上，在民事訴訟制度之建構上，愈能使當事人就訴訟權之侵害循民事訴訟程序內部之救濟途徑予以排除，其即愈無向大法官尋求救濟之必要。不過，即便是窮盡民事訴訟上之各種救濟途徑，因裁判行爲而生之訴訟權侵害，仍殘存有未能受到救濟之疑慮，因此，仍宜存在有向大法官禪求外部救濟之餘地。大法官具有憲法解釋、違憲審查之專業法院的意義，就訴訟權（及其他基本權）之保護，應與民事法院（或其他專業法院）處於相互合作之關係。

關鍵字

聽審請求權；公正程序請求權；適時審判請求權；權利有效保護請求權；武器平等；突襲性裁判與闡明；訴訟權侵害之救濟；第三審上訴；再審；憲法法院

並列摘要

Through a series of interpretations, the Justices of the Constitutional Court have elaborated on the meaning of the litigation right in Article 16 of the Constitution, which includes the right to judgement in a reasonable time, the right to effective remedy, the right to be heard, the right to procedural equality, and the right to due process. All these rights must be harmonized with one another when they conflict The judge has duty to provide timely and proper clarification, which divides the parties' responsibility for timely defenses and setoffs, and prevents the incidence of ”surprise decision” As complementary right, the right to fair (due) process should be aimed at protecting the parties' procedural interests. It is, by nature, difficult to seek relief for the violation of the right to judgement in a reasonable time Therefore, the court has to prevent procedural delay that hampers timely delivering of judgment A court decision during the proceeding cannot be appealed independently without special provisions. If delay stems from inaction of the court, provisions relevant to suspension of proceedings might be applied analogously to grant the parties concerned the right to complain. However, if delay of proceeding results from breach of concentration principle, there seems to be no other remedy than administrative supervision. The violation of the litigation right usually results from the procedural acts of the court. Under the current laws, complaint against a judgement in the constitutional court is excluded and the prerequisites of appellate remedy (appeals and revisions in the ordinary courts) have been tightened. Although it follows the example of recent revision of the German Civil Procedure Law, it negelects the reception of appeal against violation of the right to be heared, and constitutional complaint in Germany Consequently, there exist cases, where the litigation right being infringed without remedy Since the Civil procedure Law is to be interpreted in the spirit of the constitution, the prerequisites for an appeal in the third instance should be relaxed, if violation of the litigation right by judgement is involved At least, relief should be rendered possible by way of reopnening the judgement.

並列關鍵字

litigation right ； the right to judgement in a reasonable time ； the right to effective remedy ； the right to be heard ； the right to procedural equality ； the right to due process ； appeal in the third instance