- 期刊
論「憲法重要性」作為人民聲請憲法審查之受理要件－借鏡德國憲法訴願制度與相關裁判見解展望我國憲法訴訟法未來發展
"Constitutional Significance" as Admission Requirement of Constitutional Complaints
摘要
為避免不具裁判實益的案件影響憲法法庭審理效能，憲法訴訟法參照德國憲法訴願制度，對人民聲請憲法審查設有受理要件（第61條）。其中較為抽象的「憲法重要性」要件，有釐清其內涵之必要，同時也應探討受理要件的定位係隱含法院裁量權限的不予受理事由，抑或當要件具備時法院的受理義務。為此，本文整理德國聯邦憲法法院法受理程序的發展沿革，提供憲法法庭解釋與立法者修正受理制度時之參考。本文除認為受理義務的立場應較為可採外，對於「憲法重要性」須以嚴格標準進行解釋，亦即聲請人須提出憲法問題而非單純法規適用或事實認定問題，該憲法問題須於審理時無法迴避，且過去裁判與解釋無法提供解答，或因事實或法規變更，有重新解答的必要，還必須具有超越個案救濟的意義。最後，法制度比較時值得注意的事實背景是，德國受理制度始終明確的以消化大量憲法訴願案件負擔為目的，其並成為採取如此複雜、特殊程序之正當化理由，類似的制度難題在我國是否發生，則有待日後觀察。
並列摘要
The Constitutional Court Procedure Act came into effect on January 4, 2022. Article 61 states: "Petitions under this Section are admissible insofar as they concern principles of constitutional significance or it is necessary to satisfy the petitioners' basic rights protected under the Constitution." However, how should the concept of "constitutional significance" be interpreted? However, the meaning of this provision is unclear: when this condition is not met, the court may dismiss it (the court has discretion), or when this condition is met, the court has the duty of admissibility? The author discusses the development history of the Admission Procedure (Annahmeverfahren) in the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) in Germany, hoping to serve as a reference for our country to interpret and apply Article 61. In short, the petitioner must raise constitutional questions rather than simply the application of statutes or fact-finding. These constitutional questions must be unavoidable during the trial and cannot be answered by past judgments and interpretations, or they need to be re-answered due to changes in facts or statutes. And not least it should not only play the significance of the relief of the petitioner's individual rights.