论文部分内容阅读
“S.A.S.诉法国”案涉及法国立法禁止在公共场所穿戴蒙面服饰是否违反《欧洲人权公约》的问题。在本案中,欧洲人权法院修正了相关判例法,驳回了法国有关穿戴蒙面服饰与性别平等和人性尊严相关的主张。尽管如此,法院还是以比较宽松的标准通过了对法国立法的合理性和必要性审查。一方面,法院对公约限制条款进行扩张解释,支持了法国以“共同生活”为限制理由的合理性辩护;另一方面,在评估立法禁止蒙面服饰必要性的问题上,法院保持司法克制并授予法国宽泛的自由裁量余地。欧洲人权法院扩张解释和司法克制具有内在的统一性。欧洲社会现实、缔约国对特定国内情势下的社会政策选择以及欧洲人权法院与缔约国关系,是欧洲人权法院扩张解释和司法克制的重要影响因素。
“S.A.S. v. France ” on the French legislation prohibiting the wearing of masked clothing in public places is a violation of the “European Convention on Human Rights.” In the present case, the European Court of Human Rights amended the relevant case law and rejected France’s claim that the masked dress should be worn in connection with gender equality and human dignity. In spite of this, the courts passed the review of the rationality and necessity of French legislation on a more lenient standard. On the one hand, the court expanded its interpretation of the convention’s restrictive provisions in support of France’s justification of the restriction on “common life”; on the other hand, in assessing the necessity of legislation to ban masking, the court upheld the judicial Restrain and grant France a wide margin of discretion. The ECHR’s interpretation of expansion and judicial restraint are inherently unified. The reality of European society, the choice of social policy by the State party for specific domestic situations and the relationship between the European Court of Human Rights and the State party are important factors for the interpretation and judicial restraint of the European Court of Human Rights.