466 / 774
466
歐美研究
符合民主社會之需要，基於國家安全或公眾安寧之利益、為了防止
失序或犯罪、保護健康或道德、或維護他人自由及權利諸原因，不
得對實行上述權利為限制。但本條文不應禁止針對軍隊、警察或國
家公務員實行上述權利時為合法限制。」
28
因而對於表意自由及集會與結社自由做限制，最基本必須符合
三個要件：限制方法是否有法律依據、是否有法定之限制原因、是
否符合民主社會之必要及是否符合比例原則
(廖福特
, 2003:
265-266
)。而最重要的是最後一個要件之斟酌，其至少具備兩個功
能，第一，作為限制與目的之間的比例原則思考；第二，作為民主
必要此限制正當化理由之思考準則。歐洲人權法院所強調之民主特
質為多元主義
(
pluralism
)、容忍
(
tolerance
)、寬容
(
broadminded-
ness
)。
29
而歐洲人權法院也強調，所稱之民主社會之「必要」，必
須合理確認，
30
達到「急迫的社會需要」(
pressing social need
) 才符
28
英文原文為：
No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than
such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the inter-
ests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for
the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms
of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the
exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the ad-
ministration of the State.
29
參見歐洲人權法院以下判決：
Handyside v. the United Kingdom, paragraph 49;
Lingens v. Austria, paragraph 41; Müller and others v. Switzerland, paragraph 33;
Oberschlick v. Austria, paragraph 57; The Observer and the Guardian v. the United
Kingdom, paragraph 59; Vogt v. Germany, paragraph 52; Piermont v. France, par-
agraph 76; Otto-Preminger Institute v. Austria, paragraph 49; Thorgeir Thorgeirson
v. Iceland, paragraph 63; The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom
(
No. 2
)
, para-
graph 50.
30
European Court of Human Rights, The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom
(
No.
2
)
, judgment of 26 November 1991, paragraph 47.