法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 公務機關間個人資料之傳遞-以臺灣桃園地方法院行政訴訟 102 年度簡字第 2 號判決出發(The Transmission of Personal Information between Government Agencies - Focusing on the Ad. Judgment No. 2 of Taiwan Taoyuan District Court 2013)
編著譯者: 詹鎮榮
出版日期: 2015.01
刊登出處: 台灣/法學叢刊第 60 卷 第 1 期 /1-27 頁
頁  數: 26 點閱次數: 1886
下載點數: 104 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 詹鎮榮
關 鍵 詞: 個人資料資訊隱私權個人資料之傳遞公務機關目的拘束原則法律保留法定職務
中文摘要: 公務機關間相互傳遞個人資料,涉及個人資料之利用及蒐集行為。若未經當事人之同意而為之,則屬對其受憲法所保障之資訊隱私權構成侵害。我國個人資料保護法對於公務機關間個人資料之傳遞並無特別之規定,對傳遞行為之合法性判斷,實務上向來採行「分別評價」模式:就傳遞機關而言,須滿足個人資料保護法第 16 條之「資料利用」規定;而就接收機關而言,則須滿足同法第 15 條關於「資料蒐集」之規定。操作之結果,傳遞機關及接收機關皆須是在「執行各自法定職務」之範圍內,個人資料之傳遞始屬適法。此等法適用之結果,一方面固然對於當事人之資訊隱私權甚具保障。然另一方面,卻將導致公務機關間個人資料傳遞之合法性空間大幅緊縮。為調和個人資料傳遞所引發之公、私益扞格,建議在立法政策上或可參酌德國聯邦資料保護法第 15 條第 1 項所採行之「單方法定職務執行模式」立法例。臺灣桃園地方法院行政訴訟 102 年度簡字第 2 號判決認定違法傳遞之違規停車資料不得作為租稅法上裁罰之事實依據,對公務機關間個人資料傳遞過於浮濫之實務情形,毋寧是當頭棒喝,深值省思!
英文關鍵詞: personal informationinformation privacytransmission of personal datagovernment agencythe principle of purpose-specificationrequirement of a specif-ically enacted statutelegal duty
英文摘要: The transmission of personal information between government agencies involves the act of use and collection. Were the transmission done without permission of the person, the infringement of constitutional right to information privacy might be made. However, in the Personal Information Protection Act, no article could be used specifically to the matter regarding the transmission between government agencies; instead, with regard to the legality of transmission in practice, it is judged separately. As to the transmitting agency, it must fulfill the requirement under article 16 of the Personal Information Protection Act. For the receiving agency, obligation under article 15 of the act concerning the collection of information must be performed. This operation results in that the transmitting and the receiving agencies are both legitimate due to that they are performing their legal duties. Nonetheless, this operation, though, protects the information privacy right of that person, it left the government agencies less breathing spaces in performing legally. As to reconcile this tension, this study suggests that, for the reference of the German Information Protection Act article 15 section 1, the method of “unilat-eral-execution-of-legal-duty” could be adopted into the Personal Information Protection Act. In the administrative judgment No. 2 of Taiwan Taoyuan district court 2013, which stated that the transmission of illegal parking information could not be admitted as the factual evidence of tax penalty could be a profound and outstanding case to the further discussion regarding the topic.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、公務機關間個人資料傳遞之法律規制
參、回歸對臺灣桃園地方法院行政訴訟 102 年度簡字第 2 號判決之省思
肆、結語
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
    返回功能列