第三人近用法庭卷證資料權利與個人資料保護的調和

The Right for Pubic Access to Court Records and the Protection of Personal Data

10.6199/NTULJ.202009_49(3).0002

劉定基(Liu, Ting-Chi)

隱私權 ； 個人資料保護 ； 政府資訊公開法 ； 第三人近用卷證資料 ； 司法改革 ； the right to privacy ； personal data protection ； freedom of information ； public access to court records ； judicial reform

臺大法學論叢

49卷3期（2020 / 09 / 01）

881 - 928

繁體中文

2016－2017年的司法改革國是會議曾決議：「建議司法院、法務部研議於偵查及審判程序終結後，是否開放第三人申請錄影、錄音或卷證及其相關法制」。在比較法上，第三人近用法庭卷證資料，具有久遠的歷史，能讓民眾以較為理性、客觀的方式，親近法院的實際運作。尤其，法院書狀、卷證資料電子化的腳步，已經慢慢地展開；法院紀錄的電子化，絕非只是便利相關利害關係人或法院而已，在法院資訊公開的層次上，也具有重大意義。特別是在「大數據」時代，電子資訊的傳遞、公開，相較於紙本資訊，可以跨越地理、時間的限制，降低申請公開的成本，但伴隨而來的資訊累積、組合、比對，二次利用……等個人資訊隱私保護問題，則不容小覷。本文首先探討第三人近用卷證資料權利的理論及法律（包括憲法）基礎為何。緊接著則針對第三人近用卷證資料所可能產生的隱私保護及其他問題進行研究。最後，參酌國外實務與學理，就司法公開透明與個人隱私保護的平衡，提出本文的看法與建議。

One of the conclusions reached by the 2016-2017 National Conference on Judicial Reform is to ask the Judicial Yuan and Ministry of Justice to study the feasibility and legal framework of allowing public access to court records (including audio/video recordings and various documents submitted by the parties or created by the courts) after the prosecution and/or trial proceedings are ended. In some foreign countries, public access to court records has a long history, and it has been regarded as a more rational and objective way for the general public to closely observe the operations of the court. As court records have gradually been digitized, the ease of using these electronic records not only benefits relevant parties and courts, but also has important ramifications on public access to information held by the courts. Comparing to the traditional paper-based access regime, electronic access has dramatically lowered the costs of obtaining court records, and geographic and time limits are no longer obstacles for people who wish to access this information. However, in this big data era, the information privacy issues caused by the easy accumulation, combination, analysis, and re-use of electronic court records should not be ignored. This article will first explore the theoretical and legal bases (including the potential constitutional basis) for public access to court records. It will then study the privacy and other issues (such as witness protection, rehabilitation, access to justice) associated with such public access regime. Special attention will be given to the different levels of impacts on personal data protection caused by different access models (i.e., the traditional paper-based access model, electronic access model, and the mixed access model). Finally, by taking reference to foreign practices and theories, this article will offer its own views and suggestions regarding how we can strike a proper balance between open justice and the protection of individual privacy.

1. 陳起行(2008)。台灣法律資料庫及其個人資料之保護。法令月刊，59(6)，99-109。
   連結：
2. Ardia, D. S.(2017).Privacy and Court Records: Online Access and the Loss of Practical Obscurity.University of Illinois Law Review,2017(4),1385-1454.
3. Ardia, D. S.(2017).Court Transparency and the First Amendment.Cardozo Law Review,38(3),835-920.
4. Ardia, D. S.,Klinefelter, A.(2015).Privacy and Court Records: An Empirical Study.Berkeley Technology Law Journal,30(3),1807-1898.
5. Bennett, S. C.(2012).Pleadings, Privacy and Ethics: Protecting Privacy in Litigation Documents.Reynolds Courts and Media Law Journal,2(1),25-46.
6. Conley, A.,Datta, A.,Nissenbaum, H.,Sharma, D.(2012).Sustaining Privacy and Open Justice in the Transition to Online Court Records: A Multidisciplinary Inquiry.Maryland Law Review,71(3),772-847.
7. Deyling, R. P.(2012).Privacy and Public Access to the Courts in an Electronic World: Common Themes and Diverse Approaches to Policy Development.Reynolds Courts & Media Law Journal,2(1),5-24.
8. Eltis, K.(2011).The Judicial System in the Digital Age: Revisiting the Relationship between Privacy and Accessibility in the Cyber Context.McGill Law Journal,56(2),289-316.
9. Gomez-Velez, N.(2005).Internet Access to Court Records: Balancing Public Access and Privacy.Loyola Law Review,51(3),365-438.
10. Morrison, C. M.(2009).Privacy, Accountability, and the Cooperating Defendant: Towards a New Role for Internet Access to Court Records.Vanderbilt Law Review,62(3),921-978.
11. Silverman, G. M.(2004).Rise of the Machines: Justice Information Systems and the Question of Public Access to Court Records over the Internet.Washington Law Review,79(1),175-221.
12. Sinn, Arndt,吳瑛珠（譯）(2018)。裁判書公開於德國之實踐（上）。司法週刊，1926，2-3。
13. Snyder, D. L.(2008).Nonparty Remote Electronic Access to Plea Agreements in the Second Circuit.Fordham Urban Law Journal,35(5),1263-1310.
14. Solove, D. J.(2002).Access and Aggregation: Public Records, Privacy and the Constitution.Minnesota Law Review,86(6),1137-1218.
15. Solove, D. J.(2004).The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age.New York:New York University Press.
16. Sudbeck, L. E.(2006).Placing Court Records Online: Balancing the Public and Private Interests.Justice System Journal,27(3),268-285.
17. The Sedona Conference(2012).The Sedona Guidelines: Best Practices Addressing Protective Orders, Confidentiality & Public Access in Civil Cases.Sedona Conference Journal,8,141-188.
18. 李惠宗(2015).憲法要義.臺北:元照.
19. 李惠宗(2008)。裁判書上網公開與個人資訊自決權的衝突。月旦法學雜誌，154，21-34。
20. 李震山(2007).多元、寬容與人權保障：以憲法未列舉權之保障為中心.臺北:元照.
21. 法治斌(2003).資訊公開與司法審查：行政法專論.臺北:正典.
22. 劉定基(2015)。法庭錄音的公開及其限制：司法獨立、司法課責與隱私保護。月旦法學雜誌，245，149-167。
23. 鄭玉山(2015)。數位卷證之使用、管理：自公正審判程序角度之合憲思考。檢察新論，18，22-29。
24. 謝耀德(2015)。數位卷證保管及使用管理問題研析。檢察新論，18，4-21。
25. 羅承宗(2011)。兒少不宜的司法院裁判書網站：殘酷內容之現況與對策。科技法學論叢，6，89-112。

1. 林孟楠(2021)。論法庭影音採訪行為之憲法基礎及司法政策。臺北大學法學論叢，119，1-83。
2. 翁逸泓(2022)。資料治理法制：歐盟模式之啟發。東海大學法學研究，64，55-116。