論德國法院對基本權利之保障以及立法者之角色（譯文）

Protection of Fundamental Rights through Courts and the Role of Legislation in Germany

作者首先提出本文命題：法律與法院均以基本權保障為目標，達成該目標之前提是恪守權力分立原則。隨後於第壹部分主要介紹基本權條款對國家權力之拘束性，並藉由憲法審判制度避免其淪為單純方針條款。第貳部分的論述著重於基本權釋義學對基本權條款效力的重要性，並依序說明基本權構成要件以及判斷國家是否合憲的限制基本權之審查標準，其中作者特別指出比例原則對實現權力分立原則的意義：藉由排除「完全不適當」或者「不合比例」的限制基本權之行為，使立法形成自由不受憲法法院過度干涉，並與積極的「最佳化誡命」有所區別。作者接著探討國家對基本權的保護義務，一方面指出落實保護義務仰賴立法者的決定，另一方面憲法法院透過「憲法續造」使保護義務範圍擴大，並以「不足禁止」原則審查各種立法保護措施，以避免立法形成自由受到過度干涉。進而言之，即令基本權保護措施可能同時造成對第三人權利之限制，法院並不因此取得指出憲法上唯一容許答案之權限，毋寧應將立法者的形成空間劃定在國家干涉的最高限度與實現保護的最低限度之間。最後，作者延續國家保護措施造成第三人權利限制的論述脈絡，說明憲法法院與專業法院在基本權保障任務上的分工與相關爭議，並以利益衡量結論的多樣性以及其間變遷與差異，指出基本權利的多元面向，實現彼此間平衡調和乃立法權與司法權均須致力的課題。

The thesis of this article is followed: the law and the court are designed to guarantee fundamental rights. In order to accomplish this goal, they have to abide by the principle of separation of powers.
In the first chapter, the author introduces how the state powers is confined by fundamental rights and how the constitutional procedure law works to avoid those rights becoming pure policy statements (Programmsätze).
Chapter Two focuses on the fundamental rights doctrine (Grundrechtsdogmatik). While the author explains the components of fundamental rights and the constitutional limitations on these rights, the principle of proportionality is emphasized for it playing a central role in implementing the principle of separation of powers. The compliance with the principle of proportionality is meant to rule out those restrictions, which are totally inappropriate or disproportionate, so that legislative arrangements can be preserved from the excessive interference of the constitutional court.
The next point is the state obligation to protect the fundamental rights. The author stresses out two perspectives. On the one hand, to fulfill this obligation relies on legislative decisions. On the other hand, the constitutional court expands the scope of the obligation through his further development of the constitution (Fortbildung der Verfassung) and applies the principle of prohibition of insufficient actions (Untermaßverbot) into judicial reviews, so that the excessive interference can be prevented. Even if the protective actions could lead to limit the rights of third parties, the court is not entitled to point out the one and only constitutional answer about the best protection, but rather to set the options between the upper limit of the restrictions and the lower limit of the protections.
The last part of this article is a study into the division of protection tasks between the constitutional court and the ordinary courts. The related problems are also briefly discussed. In the situation of protecting someone’s rights resulting in limitations of others, there are many kinds of balance of interests. The differences and the transition process of these possibilities explain all aspects of fundamental rights. The legislature and the judiciary both should take the effort to find out a sustainable balance.