侦查初期律师帮助权的欧洲实践及其借鉴——以欧洲人权法院“伯兹诉比利时”案为中心  

European Practice and its Reference for the Right of Access to a Lawyer in the Early Stage of Investigation——Based on the Case of Beuze v.Belgum in ECtHR

作　　者：李昌盛[1] 李艳飞 LI Chang-sheng;LI Yan-fei(Law School,Southwest University of Political Science and Law,Chongqing 401120,China)

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学法学院,重庆401120

出　　处：《河北法学》2022年第1期60-80,共21页Hebei Law Science

基　　金：中国法学会2017年度部级研究课题“刑事证明的实质化研究”(CLS(2017)C27);2020年重庆市研究生科研创新项目“审判中心视野下认罪认罚从宽制度研究”(CYB20129);2021年西南政法大学法学院学生科研创新项目“认罪认罚从宽与审判中心主义的关系研究”(FXY2021031)的研究成果。

摘　　要：在审前阶段特别是侦查初期,被追诉人获得切实有效的律师帮助是公正审判的基本特征,而限制律师帮助则属于例外情形。伯兹诉比利时案判决反映了人权法院对待法定限制律师帮助权所秉持的审查立场,即无论是否具有迫不得已的理由限制律师帮助权,均应采取整体平衡的审查方法。只不过缺乏迫不得已的理由,人权法院应在考虑相关平衡因素的基础上严格审查诉讼程序的整体公正性。对律师帮助权的法定限制并不能解除政府基于例外性、临时性、个案评估的审查责任。立足我国法律实践,反思我国与人权法院之间的差距,人权法院的欧洲实践对完善我国侦查初期律师帮助权具有借鉴意义。In the pre-trial stage,especially in the early stage of investigation,it is the basic feature of a fair trial for the person charged with a criminal offence to be effectively and practically defended by a lawyer,while the restriction of access to a lawyer is an exception.The case of Beuze v.Belgum judgment reflected ECtHR'review standpoint for the statutory restriction on the right to counsel.Namely,regardless of whether there are compelling reasons to restrict the right to counsel,the review method of overall balance should be adopted,but when there is no compelling reason,the overall fairness of the proceedings should be strictly reviewed on the basis of balance factors.The statutory restriction on the right to counsel cannot relieve the government from the review responsibility based on an exceptional,temporary,and individual assessment.Based on our domestic legal practice and reflecting on the gap between our country and ECtHR,the practice of ECtHR is of reference and guiding significance to improve the right of access to a lawyer in the early stage of investigation in China.

关 键 词：欧洲人权法院 侦查初期 律师帮助 公正审判 整体平衡 

分 类 号：D95[政治法律—法学] DD912.7