歐洲人權公約普遍施行於歐洲各國，其中有闡程序基本權，主要規定於該公約第六條，特別是該條第一項被泛稱為「公平聽審權」、「健全司法作用有關之權利」等之規定，其作為同條其他各項，以及公約其他程序權與實體權規定之一般程序規範，其重要性，自不容忽視。 關於公約第六條第一項所謂公平聽審權之規定，於行政程序之適用問題，須討論的層面，可分為適用範圍與程序內涵兩部分。首先，就適用範圍而言，查該公約第六條第一項前段規定： (政府) 在決定其 (每個人) 市民權利與義務或任何對其刑事指控時，每個人均享有於合理期間內由一個依法設立之獨立且不偏頗的裁決機關公平與公開聽審之權利。準此，本條項所謂公乎聽審權之適用範圍，是否或如何及於行政程序？關鍵在於「市民權利與義務」與「刑事指控」如何解釋。對此，歐洲人權法院發展其「自體概念」，不受各締約國法律體系或其權利分類之影響。前者，只要是系爭行政決定對私人權利義務具有「直接地決定性」，且存在「真正、重大之紛爭」，而該紛爭與系爭權利直接連結，即屬該當。至於市民權利，有時雖被解為「私權利」而與「公權利」區別，但此仍不能以大陸法系公法與私法區分為當然之基礎。後者，「刑事指控」之概念，一般包含紀律 (懲戒) 罰與一般行政處罰 (秩序罰) 乃至行政管制行為，但個案須考慮締約國對系爭違法犯之定性、違法犯之本質以及處罰之嚴重性程度，依此標準，通常懲戒罰須係對人身自由較長時間之剝奪或限制，始足當之；反之，一般行政處罰，則縱然是金錢罰，若數額龐大，即可能該當。 其次，關於適用於行政程序之公平聽審權之基本內涵，依公約第六條第一項明示之權利，如下：受獨立且不偏頗裁決機關聽審權、 (狹義) 公平聽審權，公開聽審權、合理期間裁決權；另外，尚包括一項隱含的權利，即作為上述權利行使前提之「接近法院或裁決機關權」。當然，各項權利內容於個案並非一成不變，但其權利核心或本質，則不可廢棄。不過，上開權利尚非要求同案於最初階段行政程序，必應遵守，只要行政領域中，尚有具備公約第六條第一項組織要素之裁決機關，為符合該條項程序要素之後續控制，即可。 我國大法官歷年來有關正當程序或類如前述公平聽審權之解釋，尚未一般性地論述正當程序於行政程序適用時之基本程序內涵，甚且連正當程序於我國憲法之根據何在，前後解釋例也不相一致，或則略而不談。凡此，或可從比較法之觀點，就前揭歐洲人權公約之規定及歐洲人權法院之判例，獲得啟示。

　　　　　Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, adopted on 4 November 1950 and effective on 3 September 1953, provides for some procedural rights generally called "the right to a fair hearing" or "the right to a fair trial". The provision consists of three sections: The first section contains fundamental rights concerning procedural guarantees which applies not only to civil and criminal proceedings but also to administrative procedure, whereas the second and third sections contain specific rights of criminal offenders in criminal proceedings. There are two level problems related to how Article 6(1) applies to administrative procedure. One is the scope of application, the other is the content of procedural guarantees. The first, it mainly concerns with how to interpret the text of the article "civil rights and obligations" and "criminal charge". The European Court of Human Rights stressed or reiterated "autonomous notions" of the convention which was not affected by category of rights or legal system of contracting states in many cases .To sum up, the result of administrative decision or procedure must be diretly decisive for private rights and obligations in legal effect, and there exists a genuine and serious dispute concerning the particular rights and obligations. However, these criteria mentioned above are not founded on distinguishing public law and private law matters . The notion of criminal charge includes disciplinary and regulatory offences in particular realm of administration in addition to criminal offences There are three criteria for evaluating whether a given cause of action should be characterized as a "criminal charge": l. whether the provisions defining the offence belong to criminal law, disciplinary law or both concurrently according to the legal system of the respondent state; 2.the nature of the offence; and 3.the degree of severity of the penalty which the person concerned risks incurring The second, the content of Article 6(1) as to procedural guarantees applied to administrative procedure are expressed as "fair and public hearing within a reasonable time" and "by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law". In other words, some administrative decisions need to be heard and the persons are entitled to "the right to a fair hearing", "the right to a public hearing" and adjudication within a reasonable time as well as adjudicative body must be independent and impartial. In addition, Article 6(1) implies" the right of access to a tribunal" as a prerequisite to those rights mentioned above.