大法官解釋 釋字第718號 |
|---|
| 公佈日期：2014/03/21 |
| 解釋爭點 |
| 集會遊行法申請許可規定未排除緊急性及偶發性集會遊行之部分，違憲？ |
| 參、其他不受理部分實有受理價值 （一）多數意見對聲請人就集會遊行法其他相關條文，如第四條（集會遊行不得主張共產主義或分裂國土）、第六條（不得舉行集會遊行之地區）、第九條第一項前段（集會遊行於六日前申請許可之要件）等等，所提出之聲請，認非屬原因案件所適用或應適用之規定，故不予受理。此項見解限縮本院大法官進行抽象違憲審查之權限，且與本院釋字第四四五號解釋集會遊行法之論述相牴觸。 （二）本院釋字第四四五號解釋理由載謂：「人民、法人或政黨於其憲法上所保障之權利，遭受不法侵害，經依法定程序提起訴訟，對於確定終局裁判所適用之法律或命令發生有牴觸憲法之疑義者，得依司法院大法官審理案件法第五條第一項第二款規定聲請解釋。大法官依此規定所為解釋，固以該確定終局裁判所適用之法律或命令為標的，就人民、法人或政黨於其憲法上所保障之權利有無遭受不法侵害為審理對象。惟人民聲請憲法解釋之制度，除為保障當事人之基本權利外，亦有闡明憲法真義以維護憲政秩序之目的，故其解釋範圍自得及於該具體事件相關聯且必要之法條內容有無牴觸憲法情事而為審理。⋯⋯足以說明大法官解釋憲法之範圍，不全以聲請意旨所述者為限。」該解釋案之原因案件涉及集會遊行法第二十九條之罪，然該號解釋則對集會遊行法多數重要條文為全面審查。本件原因案件所涉及者亦為集會遊行法第二十九條之罪，然卻以該法相關條文非原因案件所適用或應適用而不予受理，前後並不一貫，且未能藉此機會審查與第二十九條相關之條文及制度，以杜爭議，甚為可惜。 【註腳】 註一：參見聯合國人權理事會（Human Rights Council）2010年10月決議（A/HRC/RES/15/21）、2012年10月決議（A/HRC/RES/21/16）、2013年10月決議（A/HRC/RES/24/5） 註二：其原文為："Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly⋯." 註三：其原文為："The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. Norestrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other thanthose imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary ina democratic society in the interests of national security or publicsafety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public healthor morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." 註四：其原文為："Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly⋯" 註五：其原文為："The right of peaceful assembly, without arms, isrecognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of thisright other than those imposed in conformity with the law andnecessary in a democratic society in the interest of nationalsecurity, public safety or public order, or to protect public healthor morals or the rights or freedom of others." 註六：文件號碼：A/68/299。 註七："⋯ the Special Rapporteur recalls that the right to freedom ofpeaceful assembly does not require the issuance of a permit to holdan assembly. If necessary, a mere prior notification, intended forlarge assemblies or for assemblies at which some degree ofdisruption is anticipated, may be required. Spontaneous peacefulassemblies, which usually occur in reaction to a specific event -such as the announcement of results - and which by definition cannot be subject to prior notification, should be more tolerated in thecontext of elections." 註八："Although lawful in several jurisdictions, a permit requirement accords insufficient value to both the fundamental freedom to assemble and to the corresponding principle that everything not regulated by law should be presumed to be lawful. Those countries where a permit is required are encouraged to amend domestic legislation so as to require notification only. It is significant that, in a number of jurisdictions, permit procedures have been declared unconstitutional." |
| < 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 > |
填單諮詢
最新活動