中立法院與刑事法官之迴避事由--以德國法與歐洲人權法院裁判為中心

Abstract

無偏頗法庭乃是公帄審判權利中非常重要的一環，而其具體落實即是有賴於 法官迴避制度的運作，尤其是對於刑事程序被告而言，更有重大意義。然而，由於刑事訴訟法第 18 條第 2 款中，足認法官有偏頗之虞屬於概括條款，因此何謂偏頗之虞，判斷標準為何，何種程度應肯認聲請法官迴避有理由，皆是問題所在，而此即是本文重點所在。 首先，本文類型化自德國學說與實務上的討論，詴圖歸納出曾經有過的案例類型，此因我國在立法之初，即曾參考德國刑事訴訟法的條文為典範，是以，德國法上關於該條陸續發展出各種的原則與例外，也不失作為我國在解讀「偏頗之虞」的參考對象。 再者，具有跨國性意義的歐洲人權法院案例法中，也有許多關於無偏頗性的判例，其中，人權法院一再強調，「正義必頇被彰顯而非僅僅達致」，而對此，法院無偏頗的外觀也是非常重要的一部份，因為這攸關民主社會中，人民對司法制度的信心，一旦有合理根據足認法官有偏頗的疑慮，簽約國尌可能違反公約，是故，本文即整理自人權法院與委員會的重要案例，詴圖類型化以作為我國實務解釋「偏頗之虞」時參考比較之用。 而我國在立法通過《公民與政治權利國際公約及經濟社會文化權利國際公約施行法》後，已躋身國際人權公約之列，《公民權利與政治權利國際公約》第 14條第 1 項規範中亦明白指出，被告必頇由無偏頗的法庭負責審理，因此，實務不應再昧於現實，如此限縮迴避制度中，對於偏頗之虞的適用，而應該放寬肯認的標準，特別是一些誇張案例，即便是與訴訟指揮、問案態度有關，亦應當有成立法官迴避的可能性。

The impartial tribunal is very important for the right to fair trial, and it depends on the institution of disqualification of court. It would have significant meaning for the defendant who is especially in criminal proceedings. However, the section 2 of article 18 of The Code of Criminal Procedure:∥ A party may motion to disqualify a judge in one of the following circumstances: (2) Circumstances other than those specified in the preceding article exist which are sufficient to justify the apprehension that the judge may be prejudiced in the exercise of his functions.∥ is a general clause, so that it‘s necessary to classify. What‘s the meaning of impartial tribunal? What criteria do we use when judging the impartial tribunal? And when we confirm that is the sufficient reason for the judge who may be prejudiced in the exercise of his functions? Those‘re the main point of this thesis. At first, this thesis would discuss with the German law, including doctrine and practice, and try to sum up the type of previous case. At the beginning of the legislative, Taiwan has made reference to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Germany as a prime example. Therefor, the development of Germany, the principles and exceptions are very important, and could be our reference objects, when we interpret the fear of bias. Secondly, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is the other way we refer to. There are so many judgments or decisions of ECHR which are concerned with impartial tribunal. The Court reiterates that impartial tribunal is the most important right of fair trial. In this respect even appearances are of importance since justice must not just be done but must be seen to be done. What is at stake is the confidence which the courts in a democratic society must inspire in the public. This implies that in deciding whether in a given case there is a legitimate reason to fear that a particular judge lacks impartiality. Thus this thesis would try to classify the ─legitimate reason∥ for reference. After the legislature passes ─Act to Implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights∥, we are also one of international Convention‘s members. The impartial tribunal is also the word of section 2 of article 14 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That‘s why Taiwan‘s practice should not persevere with old-fashioned opinion. They should approve more and more cases that are the legitimate reason to fear that the judge lacks impartiality.