本文所探討的是歐洲人權公約如何保護在歐洲人權公約的適用下之同性戀者權利。所謂的同性戀者權,包括了私人生活的完整性以及與同性戀者共組家庭的權利。享有家庭生活為每個人的基本權利之一，然而同性戀者家庭在行使家庭生活權時，卻可能會受到國家不同程度的干預或阻礙。這是因為同性戀者共組家庭以及享有私人生活不只是個人家庭生活權的問題，同時也是各國國情的議題。因此，對於同性戀者權利的探討等於是討論保護人權如何與國家公權力干涉取得平衡。依據歐洲人權公約第 8 條的規定，國家有尊重個人家庭生活權之義務。公約本身雖未對同性戀者權做出規定，不過這並不表示私人生活且共組家庭的權利不為公約所保護，因為若不承認同性戀者之私人權，很可能會侵害到個人的尊重家庭生活權。 歐洲人權法院對家庭生活的定義與範圍採取相當寬鬆的認定方式，以實質上的聯繫來判斷是否構成公約第 8 條的家庭關係。接著是歐洲人權公約第 8 條的義務內容，「尊重」的概念同時包括了消極與積極義務，即國家不但有不干預個人家庭生活權的消極義務，亦有使個人家庭生活正常發展更為容易的積極義務。歐洲人權法院在消極義務的驅逐案件中， 所要處理的問題是國家是否能依公約第 8 條第 2 項正當化干預的作為，這部分的判斷標準主要是依照「Boultif 要件」，法院採取的是個案判斷方法論，依照公約第8條，第12條以及第14條在各別的案件中之應用判斷國家是否有在自身利益與個人利益之間取得平衡。 This article addresses the issue of how the right to lesbians and gay men is protected under the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’). The right to homosexuality includes the right to family unity and personal private life. Everyone has the fundamental right to family life; however in the context of protecting the rights of homosexuality, they might face some interference or disturbance from States when they are trying to exercise their rights. Since family and private life can be seen as a human rights issue on the one hand, the question lies here is how to reach a balance between the protection of human rights and the executive power of States. According to Article 8 of the ECHR, States have an obligation to respect for private and family life. Although the ECHR per se does not mention ‘the right to homosexuality’, it does not necessarily mean that it is not included in the ECHR. Someone’s right to respect for family life might be infringed if without the recognition of this right. The European Court of Human Rights (‘the Court’) developed a wide understanding of private life on the application of Article 8 of the ECHR to domestic issues in its case law, it focused on whether there is an existence of ‘substantive ties’ in real terms. The concept of ‘respect’ under Article 8 of the ECHR includes both negative and positive obligations. States not only should refrain from unjustified interference with someone’s private life, but also has an obligation to allow for and even facilitate the normal development of private life. In the expulsion cases, the Court developed the ‘Boultif criteria’ to decide whether the State can justify the interference under Article 8(2) of the ECHR. The Court adopted the ‘case-by-case approach’ to determine whether the State failed to strike a fair balance between its own interests and the individuals’ interests. In the homosexuality-issue cases, the Court maintains the principle that the States enjoy the right as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations. Thus, States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation over migration matters. Furthermore, Article 8 ECHR does not guarantee a right to choose the most suitable place to develop private life.