大法官解釋 釋字第667號 |
|---|
| 公佈日期：2009/11/20 |
| 解釋爭點 |
| 訴願法第47條第3項及行政訴訟法第73條未明定寄存送達自寄存日起10日後始生效，違憲？ |
| [8]據許玉秀大法官統計，截至釋字第六六四號解釋為止，本院解釋涉及正當法律程序者計有三十一則，其具體整理，可見氏著，前揭註6文，頁1-10之附表。 [9]一併參照湯德宗，論憲法上的正當法律程序，載於氏著，前揭註4書，頁195-204。 [10]美國聯邦最高法院亦曾作此相同見解，see Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238 (1980). [11]參照本院釋字第六五四號解釋。 [12]See Art. 6 E.C.H.R.: “1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.”(Emphasis added) [13]Brozicek v. Italy, Application no. 10964/84, decided on 19 Decemver 1989, paras. 41, 45. See also Mattoccia v. Italy, Application no. 23969/94, decided on 25 July 200, paras. 59-60. [14]See Paul Mahoney, Right To A Fair Trial In Criminal Matters Under Article 6 E.C.H.R., 4(2) Judicial Studies Institute Journal 107, 124 (2004). [15]我國多數憲法學者均為肯認，參照法治斌、董保城，憲法新論，頁264，二版，2005年1月；李惠宗，憲法要義，頁2 93，2008年版，2008年9月；陳慈陽，憲法學，頁592，2004年1月。此項受通知權受憲法正當法律程序之保障，亦為我國民事訴訟法學者予以肯認，有以「知悉權（受通知權）」作為憲法訴訟權保障合法聽審權之基本內容，同時，經由受通知而知悉，「人民始能極盡攻防之能事，以保障其權益」，並得就其「權利伸張與防禦具有重要性之事項得以陳述」，參照姜世明，第二章：合法聽審權，載於氏著，民事程序法之發展與憲法原則，2003年11月，頁69、70、72；或有稱「程序進行資訊獲悉權」作為憲法上保障人民訴訟權之基本要求，進而使人民作為「程序主體權始能獲得實質保障」，參照許士宦，新修正民事訴訟法上程序保障之新開展—以民事訴訟法總則編之修正為中心—，載於氏著，程序保障與闡明義務，2003年12月，頁1以下，頁18。且憲法上受通知權之保障，不僅此種知悉國家行為之事實與決定之事後通知，亦包括預先通知以及救濟途徑之教示。 |
| < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 > |
填單諮詢
最新活動