2010.3.30    高雄律師-楊岡儒律師

按比例原則（der Grundsatz der Verhaeltnismaessigkeit in Weiteren Sinne, The Principle of Proportionality ,The Concept of Proportionality），為行政法及公法上之重要原則，其性質上屬「憲法層次」之位階，具有拘束行政、立法、司法之效力，故「行政行為」或「法制規範」均應遵守比例原則之規範，且應審酌憲法第二十三條要求之內涵。

關於廣義的比例原則，其內涵包括：「適當性」、「必要性」與「狹義之比例原則」，並涉及憲法第二十三條所要求之「目的正當性、手段必要性、限制妥當性」等內涵。本次將簡介大法官會議解釋中，關於『名譽權與比例原則』之內涵，也請大家參考。

祝福大家安好與順心如意

兔寶寶律師謹筆   

2010.3.29    AM.2.05

-------------

大法官會議解釋：釋字第656號 (節錄)   

解釋文：民法第一百九十五條第一項後段規定：「其名譽被侵害者，並得請求回復名譽之適當處分。」所謂回復名譽之適當處分，如屬以判決命加害人公開道歉，而未涉及加害人自我羞辱等損及人性尊嚴之情事者，即未違背憲法第二十三條比例原則，而不牴觸憲法對不表意自由之保障。

理由書：

名譽權旨在維護個人主體性及人格之完整，為實現人性尊嚴所必要，受憲法第二十二條所保障（本院釋字第三九九號、第四八六號、第五八七號及第六○三號解釋參照）。民法第一百九十五條第一項規定：「不法侵害他人之身體、健康、名譽、自由、信用、隱私、貞操，或不法侵害其他人格法益而情節重大者，被害人雖非財產上之損害，亦得請求賠償相當之金額。其名譽被侵害者，並得請求回復名譽之適當處分。」其後段之規定（下稱系爭規定），即在使名譽被侵害者除金錢賠償外，尚得請求法院於裁判中權衡個案具體情形，藉適當處分以回復其名譽。至於回復名譽之方法，民事審判實務上不乏以判命登報道歉作為回復名譽之適當處分，且著有判決先例。

憲法第十一條保障人民之言論自由，依本院釋字第五七七號解釋意旨，除保障積極之表意自由外，尚保障消極之不表意自由。系爭規定既包含以判決命加害人登報道歉，即涉及憲法第十一條言論自由所保障之不表意自由。國家對不表意自由，雖非不得依法限制之，惟因不表意之理由多端，其涉及道德、倫理、正義、良心、信仰等內心之信念與價值者，攸關人民內在精神活動及自主決定權，乃個人主體性維護及人格自由完整發展所不可或缺，亦與維護人性尊嚴關係密切（本院釋字第六○三號解釋參照）。故於侵害名譽事件，若為回復受害人之名譽，有限制加害人不表意自由之必要，自應就不法侵害人格法益情節之輕重與強制表意之內容等，審慎斟酌而為適當之決定，以符合憲法第二十三條所定之比例原則。

J. Y. Interpretation No.656 (excerpts from the No.656)

Holding：     

The latter part of Article 195, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code stipulates,“those whose reputation is injured may further petition for proper disposition to restore that reputation.” In the event such proper disposition for the restoration of reputation entails a judgment that orders a public apology but does not involve self-humiliation or degradation of humanity, it does not violate the Principle of Proportionality and does not contradict the freedom to withhold expression protected under Article 23 of the Constitution.

Reasoning（(excerpts）:

The right to reputation, necessary in the realization of human dignity, aims to maintain and protect the individual sovereignty and moral integrity. It is guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution (see J. Y. Interpretation Nos. 399, 486, 587 and 603). Article 195, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code stipulates: “For any unlawful offense against the body, health, reputation, freedom, credibility, privacy, chastity of an individual, or aggravated unlawful infringement on other moral legal interests, the injured individual may petition for proper monetary compensation. Those whose reputation is injured may further petition for proper disposition to restore that reputation.” Based on the latter part of this provision (hereinafter “the disputed provision”), an individual whose reputation is injured may petition the court, in addition to monetary compensation, to render proper disposition to restore his/her reputation, taken into consideration the substantive circumstances of each case With regard to the means for restoring the reputation, numerous civil trial practices have used the publication of apologies on the newspaper as the proper disposition to restore reputation, and incorporate [this method] into judicial precedents.

In accordance with the meaning and purpose of J. Y. Interpretation No. 577, people’s freedom of speech under Article 11 of the Constitution protects not only the active freedom of expression, but also the passive freedom to withhold expression. Given that the disputed provision entails a court-imposed public apology on the newspaper, it necessarily touches upon the freedom to withhold expression under Article 11 of the Constitution. While the State may impose limitations on the freedom to withhold expression in accordance with law, given that there may be a wide variety of causes to withhold, the inner beliefs and values that concern morality, ethics, justice, conscience, and faith are essential to the spiritual activities and self-determination of individuals, and are indispensable for to maintain and protect the individual sovereignty and moral integrity. (see Judicial Interpretation No.603). Hence, in the case where it is necessary to limit the offender’s freedom to withhold expression so that the reputation of the injured party may be restored, [the court] should carefully weigh in the severity of the unlawful infringement on the moral interest against the contents of the imposed expression before rendering a proper decision so as to comply with the Principle of Proportionality under Article 23 of the Constitution.