歐美研究季刊 第45卷第4期
Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  468 / 774 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 468 / 774 Next Page
Page Background

468

歐美研究

訓,然而長久以來歐洲各國依然必須持續面對類似挑戰,因而公約

監督機制必須決定提倡納粹及法西斯思想之言論是否受到保障?

是否得以限制?如果可以限制,其界限為何?等難題。

(

)

早期意見

且讓本文先檢視早期歐洲人權委員會

(

European Commission

of Human Rights

)

33

的意見。在

X. v. Italy

34

歐洲人權委員會必須

決定義大利禁止以法西斯主義為指導之政治運動是否符合民主社

會之需要。而在

X. against Austria

35

H., W., P., and K. v. Austria

36

Gerd Honsik v. Austria

37

等針對奧地利之案件,歐洲人權委員會

所面臨之難題是限制新納粹或是國家社會主義活動是否合法。在

X.

v. FRG

38

Michael Kühnen v. FRG

39

Udo Walendy v. Germany

40

33

本來公約之監督機制包括歐洲人權委員會及歐洲人權法院兩者,不過公約第十一

議定書,將原有之歐洲人權委員會及歐洲人權法院廢止,另行設立一永久性歐洲

人權法院。公約第十一議定書於

1998

11

1

日生效。

34

European Commission of Human Rights, X. v. Italy, Application No. 6741/74, de-

cision of 21 May 1976.

35

European Commission of Human Rights, X. against Austria, Application No.

1747/62, decision of 13 December 1963.

36

European Commission of Human Rights, H., W., P., and K. v. Austria, Application

No. 12774/87, decision of 12 October 1989.

37

European Commission of Human Rights, Gerd Honsik v. Austria, Application No.

25062/94, decision of 18 October 1995.

38

European Commission of Human Rights, X. v. FRG, Application No. 9235/81, de-

cision of 16 July 1982.

39

European Commission of Human Rights, Michael Kühnen v. FRG, Application No.

12194/86, decision of 12 May 1988.

40

European Commission of Human Rights, Udo Walendy v. Germany, Application No.

21128/94, decision of 11 January 1995.