| 關 鍵 詞： |
婚姻平權；同性伴侶；家庭生活受尊重權；歐洲人權公約；禁止性傾向歧視 |
| 中文摘要： |
歐洲人權法院自 2010 年起，陸續公布有利保障同性伴侶關係之判決。惟受限於規範、制度歧異以及婚姻結合國族認同等因素，歐洲人權公約仍不對締約國課以保障同性婚姻之義務，保留各國是否及如何保障同性伴侶關係之評斷餘地。反之，歐洲人權法院仍屢次小幅更新解釋，支持被告國內少數意見，促成制度變遷。院方藉由公約第 12 條與第 8 條切割婚姻與家庭生活，同時透過彈性比較法區隔各國國情脈絡，以求不受嚴格歐洲共識之拘束。公約第 8 條單獨適用或第 14 條參照第 8 條，未來皆有可能進一步成為同性伴侶關係趨向與婚姻配偶平等之橋樑，並使判決以縮限通案影響力換取與特定被告國之對話空間。第 8 條單獨適用允許各國保有評斷餘地之餘，藉由回應內國見解而執行歐洲監督；而第 14 條參照第 8 條，則似有望依個案爭點、國情等要件，評價處境間是否可資類比。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
marriage equality；same-sex relationships；right to repect of family life；European Convention on Human Rights；prohibition of discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation |
| 英文摘要： |
The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights has moved towards stronger protection of same-sex relationships since 2010. However, due to the textual constraint of Article 12, the differences between marital regimes in Europe, and the link between marriage and national identity, States Parties still enjoy a wide margin of appreciation when determining whether and how same-sex relationships should be protected by their legislation, without any obligation to allow same-sex marriage under the 1950 Convention. Despite of this, the Court still renewed its interpretation timidly by supporting national minority opinion, and pushed for change. It pragmatically separated issues under Articles 12 and 8, and its flexible approach of comparative law contributed to a case-by-case contextualization, without being trapped by the European consensus principle. In the furture, Article 8, applied alone or with Article 14, may bridge the gap between marriage and diverse forms of partnership. The judgment might therefore sacrifice its general effect to all States Parties in order to gain more room for contextualized dialogue with the specific society of a respondent State. Article 8 applied alone reserves more margin of appreciation to State Parties, but the European supervision can still participate in national debates. Besides, application of Article 14 might go beyond a rigid rule of comparability between different marital status, when the given subject matter and social context so demand.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、歐洲人權法院相關判決先例回顧
一、不歧視原則適用之侷限：內國法優位之婚姻條款
二、婚姻與替代制度分軌：階段性「最大化」家庭生活保障？
參、歐洲人權公約體系限制與發展前景
一、公約體系婚姻保障之限制
二、公約第 8 條與第 14 條適用問題
肆、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|