個人影像隱私與新聞自由之權衡——Von Hannover及Peck判決分析與台灣借鏡

Abstract

媒體拍攝個人照片及使用監視錄影帶之個人影像，牽涉個人之隱私權與新聞自由之保障、衝突與權衡。過去國內學術界已從不同之比較法觀點探討這些議題，然而比較法之範疇是可以擴張的，相對地國內學術界對於區域及國際組織內之人權理念探討是比較少的。因而本文希望藉由分析歐洲人權法院之相關判決，探討個人影像隱私及新聞自由之保障及平衡。\\r 本文共分為五部分：首先，本文比較歐洲人權公約與我國憲法規範及大法官會議解釋有何異同，以作為後續討論個案之基礎。其次，本文分析Von Hannover v. Germany此一引人注目之案件，以探究要求尊重私人生活與新聞自由之界限及其理由。第三，本文探討Peck v. the United Kingdom，以分析國家機關及媒體使用個人影像之方式及界限。第四，本文帶入國內相關法制情形之探討，希望能提供台灣相關議題思考之借鏡。最後本文於第五部分作總結。 本文認為因為我國憲法未明確保障隱私權，所以這方面之保障遠落後於歐洲人權公約之內涵。而歐洲人權公約之規範可作為我國未來憲改之借鏡，同時歐洲人權法院兩個判決之理念，亦可作為未來改進我國法制之參考，其包括確認國家保障隱私權之義務、修改管理媒體法律之方向、擴充通訊傳播委員會之職權、採用禁止令制度、釐清隱私權之範疇等。

Photographing individuals and using individual images from surveillance videotapes involve the protection, conflict and balance between the right to privacy and freedom of the press. Domestic academia has presented viewpoints from diffenent comparative law perspectives. However, few of them derive from the views of international human rights law. This essay, therefore, focuses on judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, and offers different approaches of analyses on how to balance the two rights. This essay includes five parts. The first part compares rules of rights between the European Convention on Human Rights and the Taiwanese Constitution to provide a basis for discussions on individual cases. Secondly, it provides analyses on Von Hannover, which focuses on balancing private life and freedom of the press. The third part further examines Peck reviewing the method and limitations governing the use of individal images by administrative authorities and the media. The fourth part probes into Taiwanese laws, and offers suggestions for amendments. The last part provides conclusions. It is argued that, because there has been no particular provision in the Taiwanese Constitution to protect the right to privacy, the protection of this field in Taiwan falls behind that of the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, it is suggested that future constitutional amendments should include the right to privacy. This essay also argues that, in taking the two judgments examined as models, Taiwanese laws can be changed or inserted to confirm the government’s positive obligation to protect privacy, direct the ways of media management laws, extend the powers of the National Communication Commission, provide the system of injunction and clarify the ambit of the right to privacy.