https://scholars.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/126181
標題: | 從偵查法官、預審法官到自由權法官─從歐盟統一刑事法典(Corpus Juris)論偵查中法官角色之趨勢 | 其他標題: | From judge of investigation, examining judge to judge of freedoms in Corpus Juris- On the trend of judges' changing roles during the process of investigation | 作者: | 林鈺雄 | 關鍵字: | 歐盟統一刑事法典;偵查法官;調查法官;預審法官;自由權法官;偵查程序;Corpus Juris;examining judge (Untersuchungsrichter);judge of investigation;judge of freedoms (Freiheitsrichter);process of investigation | 公開日期: | 2005 | 出版社: | 臺北市:國立臺灣大學法律學系暨研究所 | 摘要: | 在偵查程序中﹐關於重大基本權決定之事項﹐捨棄傳統的二分模式(即偵 查中→檢察官決定﹔審判中→法官決定)而改採法官保留或令狀原則﹐是時勢 所趨。從一九九七年的羈押修法、二00 一年的搜索修法、二00 三年的鑑定 留置修法及正在擬議中的通訊監察修法﹐亦可看出此在台灣已經是不可逆轉的 趨勢。然而﹐一旦法官介入偵查程序之某些決定﹐勢必產生法官角色如何界定 之問題﹐尤其是諸如﹕偵查中法官介入的制度要如何形成(尤其是如何有效控 制基本權干預但又不過度妨礙檢察官偵查形成之空間)﹖偵查中專門審查基本 權干預的法官﹐應否與本案法官有所區別(如比照美國之治安法官、德國之偵 查法官﹐抑或維持我國目前實務由一般法官輪值之制度)﹖此外﹐除了介入重 大基本權干預之決定外﹐法官應否更為積極介入其他檢察官之決定或作為其審 查者(如起訴或不起訴之決定)﹖利弊得失何在﹖這些將是我國未來幾年刑事 訴訟學界及實務關注的問題。 關此﹐整合中的《歐盟統一刑事法典》(Corpus Juris )﹐正是足以攻錯的他 山之石。該法典就此捨棄法國迄今仍存的預審法官(Untersuchungsrichter ﹔又譯 為調查法官)﹐而移植德國的偵查法官制度﹐稱為自由權法官(Der Freiheitsrichter ﹕Art. 25 Corpus Juris )﹐將偵查中的法官角色侷限在關於搜索、 扣押、羈押等基本權干預之事前審查。歐洲各國刑事制度本來存有不少差異﹐ 為何最後採行此制﹖對我國立法未來偵查中法官角色有何啟示﹖這正是本研究 計畫所欲處理的重心。 此外﹐《歐盟統一刑事法典》也是近年來國際間最為熱門的刑法課題之一﹐ 這原因有二﹕一、近年來國際戰犯的審判問題成為國際刑法學界關注的焦點(如 先前南斯拉夫聯邦總統Milosevic 的審判﹐以及未來伊拉克前總統海珊的審判問 題)﹐而《歐盟統一刑事法典》正好是國際刑法的一環﹔二、《歐盟統一刑事法 典》是具有內國法效力的區域性國際刑法﹐到底歐盟如何將背景不同的各個成 員國之刑事法整合為一部共通適用的刑事法典﹖這牽涉到他國法律如何轉換成 為內國法的高難度問題﹐但也正是諸如我國這種繼受法國家經常面對的問題。 因此﹐瞭解該法典有助於我們釐清這個問題。 整體而言﹐本計畫欲以《歐盟統一刑事法典》為例﹐一來研究偵查中法官 角色之演進及趨勢﹐以及對我國未來立法之啟示﹔二來藉此拓展台灣刑事法研 究的視野﹐切入國際刑法的課題﹐瞭解歐盟各成員國如何面對刑事法的國際化 及全球化問題。本研究計畫預計發表相關研究論文﹐為台灣累積相關的中文文 獻﹐以收拋磚引玉之效。 There has been a recent trend in Taiwan’s criminal procedural law towards bringing judge in to issue or authorise the acts on restricting important human rights during the process of investigation such as the decision about custody and search. Besides, the decision with regard to interceptions of communications is planned for the judge’s exclusive power. Once the judge appears in the process of investigation, the role and the duty of the judge should be concerned. How should we form the system to bring the judge in during the process of investigation? Should we let the judge to have the right to make the above-mentioned decisions? Or, should we set up a particular judge for the purpose of making decisions on the important human right issues in the process of investigation like the magistrate in America or the judge of investigation in Germany? Is there any advantage or disadvantage under this kind of system? These problems will be confronted by Taiwan’s criminal procedural academic and practical circle in the future. This study focuses on relevant developments in European Union especially the system of “judge of freedoms” (“Freiheitsrichter”) in Corpus Juris. “Judge of freedoms” is an independent and impartial judge who exercises judicial control throughout the preparatory stage of proceedings. Pursuant to the Article 25 of Corpus Juris, any coercive measures on restricting rights and fundamental freedoms which is taken during the course of an investigation and affects a witness or the accused must first be authorized by the judge of freedoms. The duty of the judge of freedoms is to check whether the measure is lawful and regular or not. They have to make sure that the principle of necessity and proportionality are respected. The function of judge of freedoms is analogous to the judge of investigation in Germany. However, there is another scheme in France: examining judge. Why European Union chooses Germanic but not French system? This study will examine some possible reasons and discuss how European Union's experience may shed light on Taiwan's reform of the system of judge in the process of investigation. Furthermore, Corpus Juris is also a popular international criminal legal issue today. The recent prosecutions and trials of international war criminals, such as Slobodan Milosevic (former President of Yugoslavia) and Saddam Hussein (former Iraqi President), attract widespread attentions. The solution of international crimes needs international cooperation and concerns all the members of the global village including Taiwan. Therefore, we should pay more attention to this issue. Being a part of the international criminal law system, Corpus Juris plays an important position, and it is very worthy to be researched. In conclusion, through the investigation of the system of “judge of freedoms” (“Freiheitsrichter”)in Corpus Juris, this study will deal with the problems of judicial control throughout the process of investigation. This study also attempts to offer some alternative viewpoints for relevant legislation in Taiwan. Meanwhile, through taking a panoramic view of Corpus Juris, this study includes some articles, and is trying to make efforts to expand the field of Taiwan’s international criminal law studies. |
URI: | http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw//handle/246246/12896 | 其他識別: | 932414H002026 | Rights: | 國立臺灣大學法律學系暨研究所 |
顯示於: | 法律學系 |
檔案 | 描述 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
932414H002026.pdf | 290.32 kB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
在 IR 系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。