公序良俗條款在國際私法中之發展與適用——以德國法做為探討之重心

Abstract

國際私法主要是針對具有涉外因素的民、商私法關係，而從內外國的法律規定，決定該涉外事件應該適用哪一國法律的法則。各國的國際私法基本上多是立足於內外國法律平等適用的原則，而依照案件之法律關係來確定究竟適用內國法律或者是其他的外國法律。當法庭地依國際私法的選法規定應該適用外國法時，則適用外國法。為了防止外國的法律規範影響法庭地之私領域生活之安定，當外國法之適用與內國法律之基本原則相衝突時，對於內國國際私法中所指示應適用之外國法，則沒有絕對予以適用的必要性。我國涉外民事法律適用法第二十五條與德國民法施行法第六條之規定，即是透過公序良俗來限制外國法之適用。在德國法制的發展中，公序良俗條款在體系上的定位，深受薩維尼理論的影響，薩維尼認為以公序良俗之規定，排除外國法之適用，乃是例外之規定，並且依照德國之通說，公序良俗僅具有一般保留條款的性質。當透過公序良俗條款排除外國法律之適用時，如何確定替代適用之法規，在我國與德國之國際私法中，皆無明白的指示。如果考量成文法國家所重視之一般安定性的要求，那麼透過法律明文之規定而採行法庭地法說應該較為適切。除此之外，在德國聯邦憲法法院作成西班牙人決議案之後，確定了基本權對於國際私法的影響力，不僅是準據法適用的結果與基本權之內容被劃上關聯，同時國際私法法規本身也不得違背基本權內容的原則，此項原則之確立同時推動了一九八六年德國國際私法的修正。本文希望藉由德國立法例的比較分析，提供我國國際私法在公序良俗的適用以及修法的參考。文章中除了介紹德國法制中公序良俗理論的演進之外，也將說明外國法之適用如果有違背德國基本權的規定時，實務的處理態度以及該立法的過程，最後並且分析整理部分與公序良俗有關之類似概念，在德國實務操作上的具體情形。

The principle of private international law between Taiwan (Art. 25 IPR) and Germany (Art. 6 EGBGB) is based on the public order to define limitation of jurisdiction of foreign law. In the development of Germany’s legal system, the position of public order is influenced by the theory of Savigny. Savigny thought that the regulation of public order should include the jurisdiction. Besides, according to the general theory of Germany, public order is only with the essential of general reservation clause. Therefore, once public order excludes the jurisdiction of foreign law, there is no law to indicate which law should be used. If we take the stability of law into concern from the statute law countries, it would be more appropriate to consider the method of “lex fori”. Besides, after Bundesgerichtshof becomes “Spanier-Beschluss”, it decides the power of fundamental right to international private law. Base on this principle, Germany had passed the amendment of international private law in 1986. This article is basically to offer some reference for Taiwan’s amendment of international private law via the analysis of Germany’s regulation. In this article, besides the introduction of playing part of public order in German legal system, the author also describes the pragmatic process when the adoption of private international law is against Grundrecht. At the end, the author has analyzed some simulated situations with similar concepts to helpunderstand the real operation process in German’s legal system.