對外國人驅逐出境之處分──以歐洲人權公約第8條家庭生活權利為中心

Abstract

國家控制國境是國家主權之展現，然而憲法既然是保障每一個人，而不只是保障本國人，則國家對外國人為禁止入境或驅逐出境之處分時，受處分人或其他利害關係人，自有援引基本權，向為該處分之國家之司法機關請求救濟之權利。本文研究之內容，即為該受處分以國內有家庭為由，以「家庭生活權利」（或稱「家庭團聚權」）作為基本權，來主張國家禁止居留處分不符合比例原則之情形。 本文以歐洲人權公約為比較法之研究對象，先行確認「外國人」是否亦能擁有基本權之權利主體性，如有，是否有種類之限制，以及保障密度是否與本國人有差異。其次，研究歐洲人權公約對於「家庭生活」之保護，此為本論文之二個重心之一。觀察歐洲人權公約如何對「家庭生活」此一權利定性，及保障之內容，並完整介紹歐洲人權法院所曾探討過之各種家庭生活態樣，包含同居、同性伴侶、變性人等同居關係，以及生父與非婚生子女關之親子關係，乃至於其他較疏遠之親屬關係等等。

接下來是本論文另一重心，乃從歐洲人權法院判決中「人民的家庭生活權利」與「國家的拒絕入境與強制出境處分」發生碰撞、緊張關係的部分，研究「比例原則之具體化操作」。期待「比例原則」不只是法官憑法感於個案中恣意認定而已，而是經由條約、規定及判決之累積，而將私益和公益之衡量過程、比較基準予以類型化、具體化。先觀念法院判決中重視的「有利於正當化驅逐的因素」（如以犯罪為由驅逐時，其犯罪的嚴重性）以及「有利於保障家庭生活的因素」（如其家庭生活已建立多久、有多少家人在地主國等等），本文並具體將之稱為「受驅逐人之社會連結性」、「受驅逐人之社會損害性」，而事實上比例原則之操作即為社會連結性和社會損害性兩者之衡量。此後，並具體在各類型的驅逐原因：「因犯罪而驅逐」、「因國家安全而驅逐」中，具體歸納出法院經由個案中所累積出來的比例原則操作方式，以期盡量具體化比例原則的操作，使其成為可以作為比較法參考之一般化規則。 最後，在了解歐洲人權公約的人權水準後，回到我國法上，以進行比較法之研究與調校。先討論權利之定性，由我國憲法、大法官解釋及相關學說上，探討「家庭權」之法律保障問題，以外確認「外國人」是否可享有該種權利。最後，則進行相關法規及實務判決之研究，並點出我國規範內容及法院判決問題之所在。並指出我國法制之不足，並具體提出修法建議。

The border control of a nation is the key of the sovereignty showing. However, since everyone is protected by Constitution rather than only their own people are, when a country deports foreigners or prohibits them from entering, the relevent person should have rights to ask for the court to protect his fundamental right. This thesis is concerned that the deportee who has family in the country should have the chance to claim “the right of family life” against those deporting treatments which do not comply with the principle of proportionality. This thesis chooses the European Convention on Human Rights as a comparison research object. First of all, the thesis confirms 'foreigner' can also own the fundamental rights, and then researchs for which rights, and to what extents. Second, it researchs for the protection of family life in Convention. It observes how the Convention views 'Family Life', and what meaning it is. This thesis also introduces the types of family life which European Court of Human Rights has decleared, such as cohabitation, homosexual couples, transgender person couples, relationship between illegitimate children and his father-in-blood, and even other more distant relatives relationship. Next, the thesis concerns the condition that 'people's right of family life' and 'the national right to refuse foreigners entering or to deport them' mutually collide in the judgments of European Court of Human Rights, and finds how to operate 'the principle of proportionality' specifically. The thesis hopes the principle of proportionality is not only a arbitrary sense of the judge, but a clear judgment rule through the ways of the accumulating of verdicts, treaties, and regulations. The judgment method is to find the elements in the judgments of European Court of Human Rights that are conducive to justify the expulsion treatments (such as the seriousness of their crimes) and the factors helping to protect family life (such as the family life has established very long in the country). I name the former factors “social links”, and the latter factors “social damages.” In fact, the operation of the principle of proportionality is to measure of social links and social damages. What’s more, the thesis analysizes different reasons of deportation, including crime and national security, and generalizes some principles that the judgments of European Court of Human Rights have used. These principles can be provided to judges to refer to when judging a relevent case. In the end, after understanding the protection levels of the European Convention on Human Rights, the thesis goes back to our domestic laws to carry out comparative study and tuning. It analyzes the articles of Constutition, the interpretations of the Constitution Courts, and the judgments of the courts. At last, the thesis points out the problems of the judgments, the inadequacy of the legal system, and then provides some suggests of amending direction of the law.