题名

簽證核發、難民保護與《歐洲人權公約》中的「管轄」問題－歐洲人權法院M.N. and Others v Belgium案評析

并列篇名

Visa Issuance, Refugee Protection and the Scope of Application of the European Convention on Human Rights - Comments on M.N. and Others v Belgium Decision of the European Court of Human Rights

作者

彭立言(Peng, Li-Yen)

关键词

管轄 ； 領土管轄 ； 對人管轄 ； 不當對待 ； 不引渡義務 ； Jurisdiction ； Territorial Jurisdiction ； Personal Jurisdiction ； Ill-Treatment ； Obligation of Non-Refoulment

期刊名称

軍法專刊

卷期/出版年月

68卷1期（2022 / 02 / 01）

页次

157 - 181

内容语文

繁體中文
中文摘要

本文透過分析一則歐洲人權法院的晚近案例，即M. N. and Others v Belgium案，探討《歐洲人權公約》的管轄問題。在本案中，原告自稱為敘利亞難民，向比利時駐黎巴嫩首都貝魯特的大使館，請求基於人道理由核發簽證，並計畫嗣後移居比利時。在該大使館駁回原告所請之際，是否會觸發《歐洲人權公約》的適用？另一個棘手問題，則是原告等人得否主張《歐洲人權公約》第3條關於禁止不當對待的保障？於此均有重大爭議。法院於本案中認為《歐洲人權公約》所謂的「管轄」，主要是以締約國領土範圍為限，在其案例法發展中所建立可能導致管轄擴張的特殊情況，於本件均無適用餘地。最後，在通常情況下，僅有在原告已經實際身處於締約國境內時，《歐洲人權公約》第3條始有適用的餘地；因此本案中的數名難民，並無從主張本條之保護。本文主張，從理由構成而言，本件不受理決定明顯存在以下幾個疑點：首先，法院於本案中論理過程較為疏略，而未如過往案例一般檢視管轄擴張的事實背景；其次，法院將其對管轄擴張的討論，立基於「公權力」的概念之上，卻未進一步釐清其適用場合，使得論述產生邏輯的跳躍；再者，此論理與法院既有的其他裁判先例見解不一，而可能在難民的保護上創造差別待遇。對這些問題，法院未來即須發展出更為精緻的說理方法，始能圓融處理這個解釋論的困境。
英文摘要

This article explores the scope of application of the European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR) by analysing a recent case of the European Court of Human Rights, M.N. and Others v Belgium. The applicants in this case, several self-claimed Syrian refugees, went to the Belgian Embassy to Lebanon to apply for Belgian visas on humanitarian grounds. When the Embassy rejected the applicant's request, whether the ECHR's safeguards for refugees may be applicable aroused great controversies between both parties. Furthermore, another problematic issue was if the applicants may invoke Article 3 of the ECHR, safeguards of the freedom from ill-treatment, to support their legal claims. In this case, the Court held that the term ＂jurisdiction＂ referred primarily to the ＂territorial application＂ of the ECHR. Additionally, none of the special circumstances in the Court's jurisprudence that such scope might be extended were applicable in the case in question. Lastly, Article 3 of the ECHR was, under general situations, only applicable when the applicant was physically in the territory of the contracting states. The asylum seekers in question, therefore, were unable to enjoy the protection of this stipulation. This article contends that the Court's decision may be potentially flawed for the following reasons. Firstly, its legal reasoning appears overly simplistic and did not carefully examine the factual backgrounds that might expand the scope of application as it did in the previous cases. Secondly, the Court fails to shed light on the applicable situations of the ＂public powers＂ concept and its relevance to an expansion of jurisdiction, leading to a leap of logic. In addition, an inconsistency in the Court's opinions can be identified among the stare decisis and the case in question, which possibly creates unequal protection for refugees facing similar situations. In order to adequately resolve these issues, a more refined and coordinated approach to legal reasoning is urgently needed.
主题分类 社會科學 > 法律學
社會科學 > 軍事學
参考文献
  1. Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain App no 12747/87 (ECtHR 26 June 1992), at para 91.
  2. X v. the United Kingdom App no 7547/76 (ECHR 15 December 1977).
  3. Ireland v. United Kingdom App no 5310/71 (ECtHR, January 18, 1978)
  4. Al-Skeini and others v. the United Kingdom App no App no 55721/07, para 136.
  5. 2011 年的 Ivanţoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia
  6. Grama and Dîrul v. The Republic of Moldova and Russia, App nos 28432/06 & 5665/07 (ECtHR 15 October 2019), at para 49-50.
  7. 《歐洲人權公約》中文版，〈http://hre.pro.edu.tw/storage/files/%E6%AD%90%E6%B4%B2%E4%BA%BA%E6%AC%8A%E5%85%AC%E7%B4%84(%E4%B8%AD%E6%96%87).pdf〉，最後瀏覽日：2021 年 1 月 7 日。
  8. Chahal v. The United Kingdom Appl no 22414/93 (ECtHR 15 November 1996).
  9. Loizidou v Turkey App no 15318/89 (ECtHR 18 December 1996).
  10. 《歐盟簽證法》第 2 條第 4 項
  11. M.N. and Others v Belgium App no 3599/18 (ECtHR, 5 May 2020)
  12. 2013 年的 Catan and Others v. Moldova and Russia
  13. Bakanova v. Lithuania App no 11167/12 (ECtHR 31 August 2016)
  14. M v. Denmark App no 17392/90 (ECommHR 14 October 1992).
  15. Banković and Others v Belgium and Others App no 52207/99 (ECtHR, 12 December 2001), at para 73
  16. 《歐洲人權公約》，〈https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ZHO.pdf 〉，最後瀏覽日：2021 年 1 月 1 日。
  17. Banković & Others v. Belgium and Others App No 52207/99 (ECtHR 12 December 2001).
  18. Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom App no 55721/07 (ECtHR 7 July 2011).
  19. Manitaras and Others v. Turkey App no 54591/00 (ECtHR 3 June 2008).
  20. Soering v. the United Kingdom, App no 14038/88 (ECtHR, 7 July 1989).
  21. 《歐洲人權公約》第 63 條第 1 項、第 3 條
  22. The European Union, Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009R0810&from=EN (last accessed: 14 Feb. 2021).
  23. Issa & Others v, Turkey App No 31821/96 (ECtHR 16 November 2004), at para 74-75.
  24. X v. Germany App no 10565/83 (ECommHR 17 June 1974).
  25. Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, App no 46827/99 and 46951/99 (ECtHR, 4 February 2005) ,at para 67.
  26. M.K. & Others v. Poland, App nos 40503/17, 42902/17 and 43643/17 (ECtHR, 14 December 2020).
  27. Öcalan v. Turkey App no 46221/99 (ECtHR 12 May 2005), paragraph 91.
  28. Güzelyurtlu and others v. Cyprus and Turkey App no 36925/07 (ECtHR 29 January 2019).
  29. Medvedyev and others v. France App no 3394/03 (ECtHR, 29 March 2010)
  30. 〈https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_network/glossary_search/application-international-protection_en〉，最後瀏覽日：2021 年 2 月 14 日。
  31. Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia App no 48787/99 (ECtHR 8 July 2004).
  32. Cyprus v. Turkey App no 25781/94 (ECtHR 10 May 2001).
  33. H.S. and others v. Cyprus App no 41753/10 (ECtHR, 21 July 2015).
  34. H.L.R. v. France App no 24573/94 (ECtHR, 29 April 1997).
  35. Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy App no 27765/09 (ECtHR 23 February 2012).
  36. Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom.
  37. BANTEKAS, ILIAS,OETTE, LUTZ(2013).INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AND PRACTICE.
  38. Besson, Samantha(2012).The Extraterritoriality of the European Convention on Human Rights: Why Human Rights Depend on Jurisdiction and What Jurisdiction Amounts to.LJIL,25,857+872-873.
  39. Conley, Jill M.(1984).Foreign Sovereign Immunity - Whether United States Embassies Are Jurisdictional Territory under the Non-Commercial Tort Exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.GA. J. INT'L & COMP. L.,14,413+421.
  40. COSTELLO, CATHRYN(2015).THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF MIGRANTS AND REFUGEES IN EUROPEAN LAW.
  41. European Court of Human Rights, Article 3: The Court’s approach to burden of proof in asylum cases, available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Research_report_Art3_burden_proof_asylum_cases_ENG.PDF (last accessed: 25 February 2021).
  42. Farmer, Alice(2008).Non-Refoulment and Jus Cogens: Limiting Anti-Terror Measures that Threaten Refugee Protection.GEO. IMMIGR. L.J.,23,1.
  43. GRABENWARTER, CHRISTOPH(2014).EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS: COMMENTARY.
  44. Greenman, Kathryn(2015).A Castle Built on Sand? Article 3 ECHR and the Source of Risk in Non-Refoulement Obligations in International Law.INT'L J. OF REFUGEE LAW,27,264+273.
  45. Guilfoyle, Douglas(2010).European Court of Human Rights.INT'L J. MARINE & COASTAL L.,25,437-438.
  46. Linda Hamid, Ilaşcu: from contested precedent to well-established case-law. Available at: https://strasbourgobservers.com/2019/10/31/ilascu-from-contested-precedent-to-well-established-case-law/#more-4448 (last accessed: 28 February 2021).
  47. Sabina Ibrahimova, Humanitarian Visas in the International Jurisprudence and Their Implications on the International Protection Regime of the Refugees (2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3722335 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3722335.
  48. Jackson, Miles(2016).Freeing Soering: The ECHR, State Complicity in Torture and Jurisdiction.EUR. J. INT’L L.,27,817.
  49. JACOBS, FRAICIS G.,WHITE, ROBIN C.A.(1996).THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS.
  50. KÄLIN, WALTER,KÜNZLI, JÖRG(2009).THE LAW OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION.
  51. Lubell, N.(2005).Challenges in applying human rights law to armed conflict.International Review of the Red Cross,87(860),737+740.
  52. MILANOVIC, MARKO(2011).EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES : LAW, PRINCIPLES AND POLICY.
  53. Milanovic, Marko(2012).Al-Skeini and Al-Jedda in Strasbourg.EURO. J. INT'L L.,23,121+131.
  54. Miller, Sarah(2009).Revisiting Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: A Territorial Justification for Extraterritorial Jurisdiction under the European Convention.EUR J. INT'L L.,20,1223+1240-1241.
  55. Moor, Louis,Simpson, Brian(2005).Ghosts of colonialism in the European Convention on Human Rights.BYIL,76,121.
  56. Noll, Gregor(2005).Seeking Asylum at Embassies: A Right to Entry under International Law.INT'L J. REFUGEE L.,17,542+565.
  57. Ryngaert, Cedric(2012).Clarifying the Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights.UTRECHT J. INT’L & EURO. L.,28,57+59.
  58. SHAW, MALCOLM(2017).INTERNATIONAL LAW.
  59. Vladislava Stoyanova, M.N. and Others v Belgium: no ECHR protection from refoulement by issuing visas, available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/m-n-and-others-v-belgium-no-echr-protection-from-refoulement-by-issuing-visas/ (last accessed: 14 Feb. 2021).
  60. Stoyanova, Vladislava(2020).The Right to Leave any Country and the Interplay between Jurisdiction and Proportionality in Human Rights Law.INT'L J. REFUGEE LAW,11.
  61. VAN DIJK, PETER(ED.),VAN HOOF, FRIED(ED.),VAN RIJN, ARJEN(ED.)(2006).THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS.
  62. Wilde, Ralph(2014).The Extraterritorial Application of International Human Rights Law on Civil and Political Rights.ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
print cancel