| 關 鍵 詞： |
警示圖文面積；菸品包裝管制；無裝飾包裝法；商業言論；強迫言論；財產權徵用；商標權；比例原則；言論自由 |
| 中文摘要： |
菸商對於世界各國提高菸品容器管制，尤其針對提高警示圖文面積，甚至所謂的無裝飾包裝等，已經在世界各國提出訴訟，並主張違反各國憲法保障之言論自由或財產權規定。美國二○一二年華盛頓特區巡迴上訴法院對於警示圖文面積 50%之規定違憲，並採商業言論之審查標準。相對地，加拿大最高法院於二○○七年判決，認為警示圖文面積提高為 50%之規定合憲，未違反言論自由。澳大利亞於二○一一年通過無裝飾包裝法，二○一二年該國高級法院判決該法並不構成財產權之徵用。
這些在世界主要國家已經出現過的憲法爭議問題，以及該等國家的判決意見與討論分析方式，值得我國在後續面臨相關訴訟時，加以借鏡參考。最後回到本國脈絡，討論可能的違憲審查論述。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Warning Graphic Area；Tobacco Packaging Control；Plain Packaging Law；Commercial Speech；Compelled Speech；Acquisition of Property；Trademark；Proportionality；Free Speech |
| 英文摘要： |
Article 6 of the "Draft Amendment to the Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act" adopted by the Executive Yuan at the end of 2017 hopes to increase the current warning graphic area from 35% to 85%. At the end of May 2020, the National Health Administration of the Ministry of Health and Welfare proposed an "announcement amendment" to the Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act and attached a draft amendment. They also hope to increase the current 35% area to 85%.
Tobacco merchants have filed lawsuits in various countries around the world, against the control of cigarette containers, especially the increasing area of warning graphics, even the so-called plain packaging, and claim to violate the freedom of speech or property rights guaranteed by the constitutions. In 2012, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., ruled that the warning graphic area be raised to 50% unconstitutional, and based on the review standard of commercial speech. In contrast, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2007 that the provision to increase the area of warning graphics to 50% was constitutional and did not violate freedom of speech. Australia passed the plain packaging law in 2011, and the country's High Court ruled in the following year that the law does not constitute the acquisition of property.
The aforementioned constitutional controversies that have occurred in major countries of the world, as well as the judgment opinions and discussion and analysis methods of these courts, are worthy of reference as Taiwan may face the relevant litigation in the future. Finally, This research concludes by returning to similar issue in Taiwan and discuss its possible constitutional review.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、美國言論自由原則與菸品包裝管制案例
一、商業言論
二、強制揭露資訊
三、美國菸品包裝警示圖文之審查
（一）Discount Tobacco City & Lottery Inc. v. United States 案
（二）R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA 案
（三）小結
參、加拿大和澳大利亞之菸品管制案例
一、加拿大
（一）圖文警示面積提高
（二）加拿大權利自由憲章
（三）加拿大最高法院判決
二、澳大利亞
（一）無裝飾包裝
（二）澳大利亞憲法與智慧財產權
（三）澳大利亞高級法院判決
（四）改至 WTO 爭議對商標權使用之限制
三、小結
肆、臺灣之相關審查標準與模擬思考
一、言論自由審查標準
（一）商業性言論審查標準
（二）不表意自由之概念
（三）強制揭露資訊
二、提高警示面積之違憲審查
（一）重大公益目的
（二）一般比例原則審查
（三）商業言論類型化審查
三、財產權之限制
（一）商標權、外觀設計權、所有權、營業自由？
（二）財產權之限制尚屬輕微？
伍、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|