深度衝擊－英國普通法管轄規則於歐盟統一法制下之挑戰

Deep Impact-A Challenge for English Common Law System Under Uniform Legal System of European Union

10.29722/TULR.201208.0006

李瑞生(Jui-Sheng Lee)

國際民商事裁判管轄權 ； 布魯塞爾公約 ； 歐盟管轄規則 ； 禁訴令 ； 方便法院原則 ； International Jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial Matters ； Brussels Convention ； Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 ； Anti-suit Injunction ； Forum Conveniens

東海大學法學研究

37期（2012 / 08 / 01）

233 - 280

繁體中文

普通法與成文法之發展，各有其悠久歷史；而其優劣之辯也聚訟紛紜並無定論。從法制史之觀點而言，這兩種法制於發展之初，各有其不同之法哲學基礎與司法制度考量，導致其法學方法與實務操作均呈現不同風貌，但是追求公平與正義之目的則並無二致。本文認為這兩種法制各擅勝場，但也有各自不足之處。歷經實證操作與理論反覆辯證，似乎可以觀察到兩大法系各自朝向折衷之道有所修正：普通法系為求法之穩定性而採取了一些成文法制度，成文法系為增加彈性以達成個案正義，也採取了若干普通法之技巧。歐盟的法制整合，最值得關注的便是普通法系的英國如何與大陸法系之歐陸諸國互相融合。眾所皆知：歐陸諸國所主導之各項法制工程，向來均帶著強烈大陸法系色彩；英國為老牌普通法系，擁有豐富而深厚的判例法及令人敬重的司法系統；有無可能在整合之架構中，一方面維持成文法之穩定明確與普通法之彈性，以致於個案正義之終極目標？可惜的是：至少在民商事國際裁判管轄權這個領域，歐陸諸國對於英國的普通法採取完全排除之立場！近年來一些案例顯示，歐洲司法法院對於英國的禁訴令、方便法院原則等彈性的管轄規則，全部認為不符合歐盟之管轄規則，不得適用於歐盟成員國之間。甚至有些案例顯示，只有使用這些英國的彈性規則才足以維護個案正義，但歐洲司法法院一概拒絕；引發英國法界抨擊。本文認為：在個案正義的最高價值之下，容許歐盟硬性管轄規則輔以英國普通法管轄規則是值得嘗試的架構。有很多法例都指向一個共同的觀念：硬性的成文法條其實可以與彈性抽象的條款相互配合，並且相輔相成。本文建議，歐洲司法法院可以大方的接受英國的禁訴令、方便法院原則，讓英國法院主要以歐盟的成文管轄規則來決定管轄權，信任英國法院會在不違背公約的情況下謹慎、妥善的行使其裁量權，如果真的很不放心，可以考慮設置一個審查機制，針對英國法院是否濫發禁訴令，交給歐洲司法法院加以把關，這並非做不到的事，又可以顯示出在濃厚大陸法氣息的歐盟管轄規則之中，仍然可以保留一絲英國普通法的彈性空間，這樣尊重包容不同的法律傳統，才會令人敬重其格局之恢弘！

Both the common law system and the civil law system have its long time develop history. Many commentators argue for which system is better for centuries and without consensus. On the legal history, these two systems based on different jurisprudence and judicial regime, so we can observe the different methodology and practice procedure. But both toward the same aim to maintain case justice. The author believes that these two systems have different advantages and flaws. After a long term practice and argument, we can see that these two systems now revise toward the way of compromise: the civil law system established some flexible clause and the common law system accept some statute code.To uniform the legal system between member states of European Union, how the United Kingdoms' common law legal system integration into the civil law system of most other member states is a key point. As we know, European continental states conduct the legal uniform engineering with a strongly civil code style, the UK is a traditional common law home country with abundant case law and venerable judicial system, whether it is possible to integrate these two systems and maintain stability from civil law system and flexibility from common law system, to approaching toward the ultimate goal of case justice?Unfortunately, at least on the issue of international jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters, European continental states totally exclude the UK common law regime from the uniform jurisdiction regulation. Many recently cases demonstrate that the European Court of Justice gave rulings, include anti-suit injunction, forum conveniens, forum non conveniens, that all of UK flexible jurisdictional regulation, are inconsistent with the EC 44/2001 Council Regulation, and shall not be applicable between member states. Even though some cases show that it's the only way to maintain case justice, the ECJ still totally refuse the UK style flexible jurisdictional rules. This made not only the UK scholars, but also the US commentators, sharply criticize for unfair.This thesis suggest: To maintain the case justice is the highest value, the EU should trying to accept the UK style flexible jurisdictional rules as an adjuvant. The author also find out so many regimes that complementary by mechanical civil statutes and flexible common law rules. The ECJ should allow courts of UK to apply their own traditional flexible common law rule, if ECJ do not trust UK courts; just set up a review procedure to examine will be fine. It's not a difficult problem to check whether the UK courts abuse discretion or not. The EU should retain room for the UK style flexible jurisdictional rules in EU civil law system, and display tolerance of different legal system, this magnanimity will be respectable.

1. 陳隆修(2006)。父母責任、管轄規則與實體法方法論相關議題評析。東海大學法學研究，25，191-324。
   連結：
2. 蔡華凱(2004)。侵權行為的國際裁判管轄─歐盟的立法與判例研究。國立中正大學法學集刊，14，243-300。
   連結：
3. Brown, Ian(2002).Conflict of Laws- Cracknell's Statutes.Old Bailey Press.
4. Brown, Ian(2001).Conflict of Laws- Textbook.Old Bailey Press.
5. Dicey,Morris(1975).On the Conflict of Laws.London:Steven and Sons Limited.
6. Fiorini, Aude(2008).The Codification of Private International Law in Europe- Could the Community Learn from the Experience of Mixed Jurisdiction?.Tul. Eur. & Civ. L.F.,23,89+101.
7. Hartley, Trevor C.(2001).International Law and the Law of the European Union- A Reassessment.BYBIL,72(1),22-35.
8. Hartley, Trevor C.(2005).The European Union and the Systematic Dismantling of the Common Law of Conflict of Law.I. C. L. Q.,54,813+827.
9. Michaels, Ralf(2008).The New European Choice-of-Law Revolution.Tul. L. Rev.,82,1607+1624.
10. O''Hare, John,Browne, Kevin(2003).Civil Litigation.London:Sweet & Maxwell.
11. Šarčevič, Petar,Volken, Paul(2001).Yearbook Of Private International Law- Volum III.Hague:Kluwer Law International.
12. Sime, Stuart(2003).A Practical Approach to Civil Procedure.London:Oxford.
13. Wilson, Maura E..Let Go of That Case! British Anti-Suit Injunctions against Brussels Convention Members.Cornell Int'l L.J.,36,207+226.
14. 邱晃泉、張炳煌(1993)。歐洲共同體解讀─實用的制度與案例介紹。月旦。
15. 陳隆修(2005)。2005年海牙法院選擇公約評析。五南=Wunan。
16. 陳隆修(1989)。比較國際私法。五南=Wunan。
17. 陳隆修(1986)。國際私法管轄權評論。五南=Wunan。
18. 陳隆修、許兆慶、林恩瑋、李瑞生(2009)。國際私法─管轄與選法理論之交錯。五南=Wunan。
19. 陳麗娟(1996)。歐洲共同體法導論。五南=Wunan。

1. 宋俊賢(2017)。英國脫歐對於其在布魯塞爾I民商事管轄與判決執行法體系的影響。臺灣國際法季刊，14(1)，47-68。