大法官解釋 釋字第710號 |
|---|
| 公佈日期： |
| 解釋爭點 |
| 兩岸條例就強制大陸地區人民出境，未予申辯機會；又就暫予收容，未明定事由及期限，均違憲？ 強制出境辦法所定收容事由未經法律明確授權，亦違憲？ |
| [15]See ICCPR §13: An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant may be expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority. (emphasis added) See also European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Protocol 7, Article 1 Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens): “1. An alien lawfully resident in the territory of a State shall not be expelled therefrom except in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall be allowed: (a) to submit reasons against his expulsion, (b) to have his case reviewed, and (c) to be represented for these purposes before the competent authority or a person or persons designated by that authority. 2. An alien may be expelled before the exercise of his rights under paragraph 1.a, b and c of this Article, when such expulsion is necessary in the interests of public order or is grounded on reasons of national security.”(emphasis added) [16]參見訴願法第九十三條第一項：「原行政處分之執行，除法律另有規定外，不因提起訴願而停止。」 [17]參見湯大法官德宗於釋字第六九九號解釋提出之部分協同暨部分不同意見書：「狹義的『人身自由』固指憲法第八條所規定的『人身自由』（即人民身體應有免於遭非法逮捕、拘禁、審問、處罰之自由）；廣義的『人身自由』則以『人身自由』為基礎，擴及於憲法第十條所規定的『居住及遷徙之自由』，再擴及於『在不妨害社會秩序公共利益之前提下，人民依其意志作為或不作為之一般行為自由』（屬於憲法第二十二條所保障的概括基本權）。三者的關係猶如同心圓般，乃由內（核心）而外（外沿），漸次開展。」 [18]參見訴願法第九十三條第二項：「原行政處分之合法性顯有疑義者，或原行政處分之執行將發生難以回復之損害，且有急迫情事，並非為維護重大公共利益所必要者，受理訴願機關或原行政處分機關得依職權或依申請，就原行政處分之全部或一部，停止執行。」 [19]參見最高行政法院九十六年判字第六一五號判例（「須解釋文未另定違憲法令失效日者，對於聲請人據以聲請之案件方有溯及之效力。如經解釋確定終局裁判所適用之法規違憲，且該法規於一定期限內尚屬有效者，自無從對於聲請人據以聲請之案件發生溯及之效力」）。 [20]並參見本院釋字第五二三號解釋（「同條例對於法院得裁定留置之要件並未明確規定，其中除第六條、第七條所定之事由足認其有逕行拘提之原因而得推論具備留置之正當理由外，不論被移送裁定之人是否有繼續嚴重破壞社會秩序之虞，或有逃亡、湮滅事證或對檢舉人、被害人或證人造成威脅等足以妨礙後續審理之虞，均委由法院自行裁量，逕予裁定留置被移送裁定之人，上開條例第十一條第一項之規定，就此而言已逾越必要程度，與憲法第八條、第二十三條及前揭本院解釋意旨不符，應於本解釋公布之日起一年內失其效力。於相關法律為適當修正前，法院為留置之裁定時，應依本解釋意旨妥為審酌，併予指明」）。 |
| < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 > |
填單諮詢
最新活動