[2009.3.26] Judgment days 审判的日子

Germany’s Constitutional Court
德国宪法法院

Judgment days
审判的日子

Mar 26th 2009 | KARLSRUHE
From The Economist print edition

The little-known judges on Germany’s Constitutional Court exert real influence, not only at home but also abroad
德国宪法法院的那些不知名的法官们发挥了实实在在的影响，不但在国内，而且在国外也一样！

Illustration by Peter Schrank

WHEN the principality of Baden merged with two others to form Baden-Württemberg in 1951, its former capital, Karlsruhe, was given a consolation prize: the Constitutional Court of the new federal republic. Modestly housed in squat blocks, the court is far from the capital, Berlin. Yet the federal government (and the states) are forever grappling with its edicts. Any toughening of police powers to deal with terrorism seems to provoke objections in Karlsruhe. So do lesser matters, such as whether commuters can deduct transport costs from taxes or whether bars can let smokers light up. “The Constitutional Court is often called the third chamber of the legislature,” notes Dieter Grimm, a former judge. “There is something in it.”

当1951年巴登和其它两州合并成巴登-符腾堡州时，巴登原来的省会卡尔斯鲁厄[1]拿了一个安慰奖：新的联邦宪法法院就坐落于此。宪法法院设在几栋不起眼的矮平建筑里，离德国的首都十分遥远。而联邦政府（以及各州）永远都在法令中角力。任何对反恐警察权力的增加似乎都会招致宪法法院的反对。法院还对那些重要性稍逊一筹的事件做出裁决：比如，公交一族是否可以从税收中享受交通费的折扣，或者酒吧是否可以允许烟民吸烟。一位前法官Dieter Grimm说，“宪法法院常被称作立法机构的第三院，此话不无道理。”

Now the court is to rule on the European Union’s Lisbon treaty, which critics say could put the judges out of business. In February it heard arguments that the treaty would give the EU the attributes of a state without making it democratically accountable, and would sap the court’s powers to protect the fundamental rights of Germans. Yet few court-watchers expect the judges to throw Lisbon out. Germany’s EU membership is enshrined in the constitution; and the court has long-standing partnerships with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

现在该法院将要审理欧盟的里斯本条约[2]，评论家们说，这一条约将让法官们毫无“生意”可做。今年二月，该法院听到的一种观点是，条约将使欧盟带有一个主权国家的性质，但却不对民主负责；条约将消耗掉法院保护德国公民宪法权利的职权。但没有一位法治界的观察人士认为法官将抛弃里斯本条约。德国宪法中涵盖了德国的欧盟成员国身份。宪法法院也和卢森堡的欧洲法院以及斯特拉斯堡[3]的欧洲人权法院有着长期合作关系。

Lisbon would tilt the balance of power a bit toward Luxembourg, but not as far as its opponents fear. Judges on the Constitutional Court will not discuss the case, but its vice-president, Andreas Vosskuhle, notes that Germany has often gained influence through the EU. He is right. Moreover, even as the Constitutional Court has been shaping post-war Germany, German jurisprudence has spread to affect Europe and much of the world.

里斯本条约会将权力的天平向卢森堡稍稍倾斜，但并不像那些反对人士担心的那么厉害。宪法法院的法官们不会讨论这个问题，但是德国副总统Andreas Vosskuhle提出，德国常常能影响到整个欧盟。这点是千真万确。而且，甚至在宪法法院重构战后德国时，德国司法的影响就已经波及欧洲甚至整个世界了。

The Constitutional Court is in some people’s eyes Germany’s most powerful institution. Almost 80% of Germans trust it; less than half have confidence in the federal government and the Bundestag, the lower house. Although a political player, the court is seen to be above politics. Parties nominate judges, but they are usually approved unanimously by the legislature. Unlike America’s Supreme Court justices, Germany’s seek consensus and seldom write dissenting opinions. Any citizen may bring a constitutional case, an antidote to Nazi notions of justice, and some 6,000 a year do so.

在部分人眼中，德国宪法法院是德国最有实权的机构。大约80%的人都十分信任她。而对联邦政府和联邦议会及其下级议会的信任不到50%。尽管法院也是政治游戏的玩家，但它却被视为是高于政治的。政党提名法官，但通常要求提名须由立法会全体通过。和美国联邦最高法院的大法官不同，德国法官寻求的是共识，判决书上很少会写反对意见。每个公民都可提起宪法案件，这是对纳粹的法律观的一剂解药。每年大约有6000人会提起宪法案件。

The court is revered partly because Germans’ affinity for the rule of law is greater than for democracy, some scholars say. Germany’s “constitutional patriotism” resembles the American idea of a nation founded on rights and values. But Germans have a different notion of these. American rights—to bear arms and speak freely, for example—are “small and hard”, argues Georg Nolte, a scholar at Humboldt University in Berlin. Germany’s, by contrast, are “fat and flexible”.

也有一些学者认为，宪法法院的崇高地位部分是因为德国人对法治的亲密远胜于她对民主的感觉。德国的这种“宪政热情”和美国以权利和价值建国的观点有些类似。但德国人对此有不同的认识。柏林洪堡大学的一位学者Georg Nolte指出，美国的权利——比如，携带武器和言论自由——是“微小且僵硬的”，与此相对，德国的权利却是“丰富且灵活的”。

The German constitution, or basic law, which will mark its 60th birthday on May 23rd, is a never-again document. Its
first article declares that “human dignity shall be inviolable”. It endows Germany with a weak president and strong state governments. Its freedoms do not extend to those who would destroy freedom, which may explain how Holocaust-denial can be a crime despite freedom of speech.

德国宪法，或者基本法，在5月23日即将迎来她的60岁生日。这部法律是绝无仅有的一部法。在其第一条中，该法规定，“人的尊严是不可侵犯的。”这就造就了一个弱势的德国总统和一个强大的国家政府。她赋予的自由不会延伸至那些破坏自由之人，这就解释了尽管有言论自由，但否认大屠杀的言论也是犯罪。

The court has elaborated rights that the constitution’s authors never envisaged. The Lüth decision of 1958 held that constitutional rights affect citizens’ relations not just with the state but also with each other, a judgment so far-reaching as to be termed a “juridical coup d’état”. The court developed a notion of the “duty to protect” basic rights from threats stemming from private action or social forces. In 1983 the court created a right for individuals to control their personal information. Last year, when considering plans to snoop on the computers of suspected terrorists, it found a right to the “integrity of information-technology systems”. “German society is over-constitutionalised,” observes Donald Kommers, of the University of Notre Dame, in Indiana.

宪法法院详细阐明的有些权利连宪法制定者都没有想到。1958年的吕特案判决书[4]判定，宪法权利影响的不仅仅是公民与国家的关系，而且包括公民间的权利。这个判决影响如此深远，因而也被称为“司法政变”。法院产生了一种“责任”理念，必须要“保护”公民的基本权利免受来自私人或者社会力量的威胁。1983年，宪法法院创设了公民有保护自己个人信息的权利。去年，考虑到对恐怖主义嫌疑分子电脑的监控计划，宪法法院又创设了一项“信息技术系统完整权”。印第安纳州圣母大学的Donald Kommers认为，“德国社会宪政过头了。”

Hans-Jürgen Papier, the court’s president, thinks its reputation for activism is exaggerated. Since 1951 it has judged laws, or parts of laws, unconstitutional in just 611 cases, a small fraction of the number it has considered. But it happens enough to keep the government busy. Recently, for example, it told the government to reinstate a tax deduction for commuters who live near their jobs, one of a number of tax rulings that is causing the finance minister heartburn. The court did not say that commuting costs must be tax-deductible, only that treating people who live close to work differently from those who live far away was unconstitutional.

而宪法法院院长Hans-Jürgen Papier却认为宪法法院这种“激进”的名声夸大其实。自1951年宪法法院开始审查法律(或者说部分法律)时，违宪的法律只有611例，只占接受审查法律的一小部分。而这一小部分已足以让政府忙活一阵了。比如，最近的一例，宪法法院就告知政府要恢复对就近工作的公交一族的减税政策。这是让财政部长极其不适的众多税收判决之一。法院的意思并不是说公交费属于减税范围，而是认为对离工作地点近和离工作地点较远的上班族区别对待这一做法违宪。

Friction has increased over the balance between freedom and security. On rights it deems absolute, the court is implacable. In 2006 it said the air force could not shoot down a plane commandeered by terrorists even to prevent a greater disaster. The court often tells lawmakers to do a better job of balancing means and ends. A decision striking down a state law allowing investigators to monitor suspects’ computers ruled that such powers are permitted only with a judge’s warrant and evidence of a grave crime. That was meant to be a warning to the federal government, which was preparing its own law. Wolfgang Schäuble, the interior minister, has occasionally struck back; last year he grumbled that some of the judges’ musings were “not democratically legitimate”. Mr Papier says that such tensions between the court and the executive are not new.

在自由和安全间的这种平衡引发了更多的摩擦。但对于那些宪法法院认为必须保护的权利，法院是绝不妥协的。2006年，法院判决，空军不得击落被恐怖分子劫持的飞机，即使是为了防止更大的灾难。该法院经常要求立法者在平衡手段和目的时做得更好些。宪法法院在对一部允许调查人员监控嫌犯电脑的州法审查时，判决该法违宪，认为这种权力只有有证据证明存在严重犯罪且得到了法官的委任状时才能行使。这实质是对正在制定法律的联邦政府的警告。内政部长Wolfgang Schäuble偶尔也进行了回击。去年，他就抱怨说，法官的一些考量“民主上讲并不合法”。Papier先生说，法院和行政部门的这种冲突已不是第一次啦。

In a world densely populated with rights, every legal act is likely to infringe at least one other. The court uses “proportionality” to decide what can be allowed. The judges subject any infringement to a whole gamut of tests. The answers reveal, for example, where a journalist’s right to free speech ends and a citizen’s right to privacy begins. Possessing a little cannabis is fine, says proportionality, because law enforcement must be balanced against the right to “free development of personality”.

在一个权利密集的世界里，每一合法行为都可能侵犯至少一种其它权利。宪法法院则会使用 “均衡”原则来判断什么行为是法律认可的。法官们对任一侵权行为都将进行全面测试。测试的结果最终会揭示，比如，什么情况下记者的权利不会侵犯言论自由，或者什么情况下公民的权利就是侵犯个人隐私。均衡主义认为，有点大麻没事，因为执法必须和“个性的自由发展”权进行平衡。

Invented by Prussia in the 18th century to limit the Kaiser’s power, proportionality has influenced constitutions from Canada’s to South Africa’s. Mr Nolte calls it “the prime example of the migration of constitutional ideas”. Even America’s Supreme Court, which employs its own form of rights-balancing, is taking an interest. Justice Stephen Breyer referred to proportionality in a recent opinion on gun control, provoking scholarly excitement.

18世纪由普鲁士创造的限制皇帝权力的均衡原则对诸多国家的宪法都产生了深远影响，不管是加拿大还是南非。Nolte先生称之为“宪政思想的传播的典型例证”。美国联邦最高法院(即使她有自己的一套权力平衡体制)对此也颇有兴趣。Stephen Breyer大法官就在最近一项有关枪支管制的判决中提及了均衡原则，这也引发了学界的极大兴趣。

In the meshing of the German constitution with European law, proportionality provides a lubricant. Each side is jealous of its prerogatives but eager to avoid confrontation. Since 1974 Karlsruhe has made the transfer of powers to Europe conditional on the protection of Germans’ basic rights; if these are infringed, the court insists, it can reclaim them. The ECJ, meanwhile, acts as the “motor of European integration” (and on human-rights issues Strasbourg has the last word). Think of an Alexander Calder mobile rather than a pyramid, suggests Renate Jaeger, the German judge on the human-rights court. Occasionally there are conflicts. Strasbourg told the German court that its pro-paparazzi ruling in a case brought by Princess Caroline of Monaco struck the wrong balance between press freedom and privacy. In February the ECJ upheld an EU directive on data collection, using defence of the single market as justification for what looked to Germans like a public-security matter. That raised hackles in Germany.

在德国宪法和欧盟法律的不断融合中，均衡原则起到了润滑剂的作用。各方都对对方的特权心生嫉妒，但又希望不要引发冲突。自1974年开始，卡尔斯鲁厄以保护德国人的基本权利为条件，将权力部分让渡给欧洲。而宪法法院坚持的一点是，一旦基本权利受到侵犯，法院就会收回让渡的权力。同时，欧洲法院扮演着“欧洲整合的发动机”（对于人权问题，斯特拉斯堡有最终决定权）。人权法院的德国法官Renate Jaeger表示，这就像亚历山大•考尔德的活动雕塑，而非金字塔。偶尔，这也有冲突。斯特拉斯堡曾告诫德国法院，它在某一案件中作出的支持狗仔队的判决被摩洛哥卡洛琳公主错误的用来平衡言论自由和隐私。今年2月，欧洲法院支持了欧盟收集信息的法令，以维护单一市场为由为德国人眼中的公共安全问题正名。但这立马激怒了德国。

Lisbon, if ratified, will change things, by giving the European Commission and the ECJ a bigger role in justice and security affairs. Rainer Nickel of the University of Frankfurt foresees a “quantum leap” in the erosion of the Constitutional Court’s powers. But judges are more sanguine. European courts collaborate closely and there is little reason for this to change, whether Lisbon is ratified or not. “It’s a shared learning process,” Mr Vosskuhle argues.

里斯本条约，如果获得批准，将会改变很多事情。这一条约赋予欧洲委员会和欧洲法院在司法和安全问题上更大的权力。法兰克福大学的Rainer Nickel预测说，对削弱宪法法院权力来看，这是一次“量子跃迁”。但是法官们却更加乐观。欧洲的各个法院一直都合作密切，没有理由改变合作的现状，不管里斯本条约是否通过。副总统Vosskuhle先生指出，“这是一个相互学习的过程”。

He will become the court’s youngest-ever president when Mr Papier retires next year. Karlsruhe, he thinks, will have its hands full coping with the implications of new technologies such as genetic engineering, with “sustainability issues” like demography and climate change and with growing threats to “equal living conditions” across Germany, another constitutional issue. It seems certain that there will be life after Lisbon.

Papier先生明年就将离任，他将是宪法法院有史以来最年轻的一位院长。他认为，卡尔斯鲁厄将会忙于处理新技术的内涵（比如生物工程），人口的“可持续性问题”，气候变化，以及另一宪政问题——即对全德的“平等生活条件”的日见增长的各种威胁。似乎可以肯定，后里斯本时代仍是一个生机勃勃的世界。

Notes：
1、卡尔斯鲁厄是德国西南部城市,是德国巴登-符腾堡州的城市。卡尔斯鲁厄是继斯图加特和曼海姆的巴登-符腾堡州第三大城市，面积约173平方千米。卡尔斯鲁厄是德国联邦最高法院和德国联邦宪法法院的所在地。在巴登州与符腾堡州尚未合并为巴登-符腾堡州前，卡尔斯鲁厄曾是巴登州的首府。
2、《里斯本条约》(Lisbon Treaty)是在原《欧盟宪法条约》的基础上修改而成，又被称为“简化版欧盟宪法条约”。
    为保证欧盟有效运作和推动欧洲一体化进程，欧盟各国首脑２００４年１０月在意大利首都罗马签署了《欧盟宪法条约》。按照原定计划，这部欧盟的首部宪法将在所有成员国批准后，于２００６年１１月１日正式生效。然而，《欧盟宪法条约》却先后遭到法国和荷兰全民公决的否决，批准进程陷入僵局。为解决欧盟制宪危机，２００７年６月，欧盟首脑会议决定以一部新条约取代已经失败的《欧盟宪法条约》。同年１０月１９日，欧盟各国领导人在里斯本就新条约文本达成一致，并将之定名为《里斯本条约》。１２月１３日，欧盟各国领导人在里斯本正式签署《里斯本条约》。
    根据规定，条约签署后交由各成员国批准，在获各国批准后于２００９年１月生效。为确保条约顺利通过，欧盟决定各成员国可以通过议会审批方式批准条约，而无需举行可能导致条约遭否决的全民公决。欧盟２７个成员国中仅有爱尔兰一国采用全民公决方式来批约。因此，爱尔兰成为《里斯本条约》能否通过的关键。２００８年６月１２日，爱尔兰在全民公决中否决了《里斯本条约》，欧洲一体化进程再次陷入困境。
3、斯特拉斯堡（法语：Strasbourg，德语：Straßburg），也译作史特拉斯堡，位于法国国土的东端，与德国隔莱茵河相望，是法国阿尔萨斯大区和下莱茵省的首府。该市人口约27万，而横跨法德两国的都会区（称为“欧洲区”）总人口达到86万多人。
    斯特拉斯堡目前属于法国领土。但是在历史上，德国和法国曾多次交替拥有对斯特拉斯堡的主权，因而该市在语言和文化上兼有法国和德国的特点，是这两种不同文化的交汇之地。谷登堡、加尔文、歌德、莫扎特、巴斯德等德法两国名人都曾在斯特拉斯堡居留。
斯特拉斯堡虽然只是法国第七大城市，但是它与日内瓦、纽约以及蒙特利尔一样，是少数几个并非一国首都，却是国际组织总部所在地的城市。斯特拉斯堡与比利时的首都布鲁塞尔一样，驻有欧洲联盟许多重要的机构，包括欧洲理事会、欧洲人权法院、欧盟反贪局、欧洲军团（Eurocorps）、欧洲视听观察，以及最著名的欧洲议会。
4、德国吕特案判决书http://constitutionalism.fyfz.cn/blog/constitutionalism/index.aspx?blogid=329234

 

译者/davidship :  http://www.ecocn.org/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=18332&page=1&extra=