摘要
香港终审法院适用比例原则判断权利限制的正当性。该院对比例原则的适用经历了从二步到三步、再到四步的演变。多数情况下,该院直接认可立法会或特区政府提出的限制目的,并肯定限制目的与限制措施之间存在合理联系。"不超出必要范围"和"明显缺乏合理依据"是第三步采纳的审查标准,前者审查强度高于后者,最近的司法实践给人一种该院偏爱后者的印象。在第四步,该院未作过价值判断。终审法院适用比例原则时频繁援用比较法,搭建比例原则分析框架、阐明正当目的内涵以及在第三步发展不同强度的审查标准是该院援用比较法的三种主要情形,来自英国枢密院、欧洲人权法院以及加拿大最高法院的判决的影响最为显著。
The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal applies principle of proportionality to review the legitimacy of the limitation of rights. The application of proportionality by the Court experiences evolution from two steps to three steps, and then to four steps. In most cases, the Court accepts directly the aims of the restricting rights proposed by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Legislative Council or the Government, and recognizes that there exists a reasonable connection between purposes and restrictive measures. “no more than necessary” and “manifestly without reasonable foundation” are the review standards adopted at step three. The former intensity is higher than the latter. Recent practice gives the impression that the Court prefers the latter. In step four, the Court does not make value judgment. The Court uses frequently comparative law in the application of principle of proportionality. Building the analytical framework of proportionality, clarifying legitimate aims and developing the review standards with different intensities at step three are the three main types in which the Court uses comparative law. Decisions from the Privy Council of the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court of Canada are most influential.
出处
《法学评论》
CSSCI
北大核心
2022年第2期38-52,共15页
Law Review
基金
全国人大常委会香港澳门基本法委员会基本法研究项目“香港法院引用国外公法判例问题研究”(项目编号:JBF201803)的阶段性成果。
关键词
比例原则
比较法
正当目的
合理联系
明显缺乏合理依据
Principle of Propovtionality
Vomparative Law
Legitimate Aim
Reasonable Connection
Manifestly Without Reasonable Foundation
