欧盟平衡人格权与言论自由的立法实践——以人格权侵权法律适用规则之立法尝试为视角  

EU Legislative Practice in Balancing between the Right to Personality and the Freedom of Expression——From the Perspective of EU' s Legislative Coordination Concerning Choice-of-Law Rules on Infringement of Personality Rights

作　　者：刘仁山[1] 

机构地区：[1]中南财经政法大学法学院

出　　处：《环球法律评论》2014年第6期173-186,共14页Global Law Review

基　　金：2011年度国家社科基金重点项目<<涉外民事关系法律适用法>实施问题研究>(编号:11AFX016)的阶段性成果

摘　　要：欧盟在酝酿非合同之债法律适用统一规则即《罗马条例Ⅱ》的过程中,开启了人格权侵权统一冲突法立法尝试。2003年《欧委会建议案》与2005年《欧洲议会决议案》中的人格权侵权法律适用条款,即是这一尝试的初步成果。二者形式上表现为"损害发生地法"与"加害行为地法"之争,实质上却反映出在人格权保护与言论自由保障的政策平衡问题上,各成员国之间尚存较大分歧。欧盟虽仍坚持在《罗马条例Ⅱ》框架下统一人格权侵权法律适用规则,但新近立法协调成果最终能否获得普遍接受尚待观察。欧盟经验表明,对于人格权侵权法律适用规则的构建,宜摒弃传统属地性规则,采用蕴含政策导向方法的最密切联系地法原则;对于人格权侵权中特殊救济措施问题准据法的确定,宜采用"分割论"而非"统一论"。In the process of formulating unified rules on the application of laws on non- contractual obligations, namely Rome II Regulation, the EU began the legislative attempts to make unified rules on the choice of law applicable to international infringement of the right to personality. The clauses on infringement of the right to personality in European Commission＇ s 2003 Proposal and European Parliament＇ s 2005 Resolution were the abecedarian outcomes of the above attempts. The conflicts between the above two legal documents are formally manifesta- tions of the conflicts between lex loci damni and lex loci delicti, but in essence reflections of the disagreement between EU member states on the balance between the protection of the right to personality and the guarantee of the freedom of expression. Although the EU still insists that unified rules on the choice of laws applicable to international infringement of the right to personality be adopted under the framework of Rome II Regulation, it remains to be seen whether the recent legislative coordination made by the EU could be ultimately accepted by the legislative bodies, Member States and social groups of EU. The EU experience shows that in the construction of the rules on the choice of law applicable to international infringement of the right to personality, the traditional territorial principle should be abandon and the policy-oriented principle of the most significant relationship should be adopted. As for the choice of the law applicable to special remedies for the infringement of the right to personality, the epelage approach, rather than Uniform Approach, should be taken.

关 键 词：人格权侵权 罗马条例Ⅱ 基本权利 立法协调 

分 类 号：D998.2[政治法律—国际法学]