德国药房案判决.docx
- 文档编号:11953248
- 上传时间:2023-04-16
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:10
- 大小:20.31KB
德国药房案判决.docx
《德国药房案判决.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《德国药房案判决.docx(10页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
德国药房案判决
Case:
BVerfG7,377Apotheken-decision
Date:
11June1958
Judges:
ProfessorB.S.Markesinis
Copyright:
RaymondYoungs
1.Art12para1oftheGGnotonlydeclaresfreedomoftradeasanobjectiveprincipleofthesocialandeconomicorder;itguaranteesthebasicrightoftheindividualtotakeupanypermittedactivityasavocation,evenifitdoesnotcorrespondtoa"vocationalprofile"fixedbytraditionorlaw.
...
5.TheauthorityunderArt12para1sentence2oftheGGtolaydownrulescoversexerciseandchoiceofavocation,butnotwiththesameintensity.Itisgivenfortheexerciseofavocationandcanonlyaffectfreedomofchoiceofvocationfromthisangle.Themoreitpurelyregulatesexercise,thefreerthecontentcanbe,butthemoreitalsoconcernschoiceofvocation,themorelimiteditscontent.
6.Thebasicrightistoprotectthefreedomoftheindividual,andthereservationofthepowerofregulationistosecuresufficientprotectionforcommunityinterests.Theneedtotakebothrequirementsintoaccountmeansthatwhenthelegislatorinterveneshemustdifferentiateinaccordancewiththefollowingprinciples:
a)Freedomofexerciseofavocationcanberestrictedinsofarthisseemsappropriateaccordingtorationalconsiderationsofthecommongood.BasicrightprotectionisrestrictedtopreventingconditionswhichareinthemselvescontrarytotheConstitutionbecausetheymaybeexcessivelyburdensomeandarenotreasonable.
b)Freedomofchoiceofvocationcanonlyberestrictedtotheextentthatprotectionofparticularlyimportantinterestsofthecommunitypositivelyrequiresit.Ifsuchaninterferenceisunavoidable,thelegislatormustalwayschoosetheformofinterferencewhichrestrictsthebasicrightleast.
c)Iftheinterferencewiththefreedomofchoiceofvocationtakestheformofalistofcertainconditionsfortakingupthevocation,adistinctionmustbemadebetweensubjectiveandobjectiveprerequisites.Theprincipleofproportionalityappliestothesubjectiveprerequisites(inparticulareducationandtraining)inthesensethattheymustnotbeoutofproportiontothedesiredgoalofproperperformanceofvocationalactivity.Particularlystrictrequirementsmustbeappliedtoprovingtheneedforobjectiveprerequisitesforadmission.
Ingeneralsuchameasurecanonlybejustifiedtoavertprovableorhighlyprobableseriousriskstoanextremelyimportantcommunityinterest.
d)RulesunderArt12para1sentence2oftheGGmustalwaysbemadeatthelevelwhichcausesthesmallestinterferencewithfreedomofchoiceofvocation.ThelegislatorcanonlyembarkonthenextlevelifitcanbeshownthatitishighlyprobablethattherisksfearedcannotbeeffectivelyovercomebymeansatthepreviouslevelwhichaccordwiththeConstitution.
...
Judgmentofthefirstsenateofthe11thJune1958
1BvR596/56
Art3para1ofthePharmaciesActstates:
"
(1)Permissiontocarryonbusinesscanonlybegivenforanewpharmacyif:
a)itisinthepublicinterestthatthepharmacyshouldbeestablishedinordertosecuretheprovisionofthepublicwithmedicines,and
b)itistobeassumedthattheeconomicbasisofthepharmacyisensuredandtheeconomicbasisofneighbouringpharmaciesisnotimpairedbyittosuchanextentthattheprerequisitesforaproperpharmacybusinessarenolongerensured.
Thepermissioncanbecombinedwithaconditionthatthepharmacyistobeestablishedinacertainlocationintheinterestsofuniformprovisionofmedicine.
...
IV
ThequestionofwhetherArt3para1ofthePharmaciesActisreconcilablewithArt12para1oftheGGrequiressomeconsiderationsofprincipleaboutthemeaningofthisconstitutionalprovision.
1.Art12para1protectsthefreedomofthecitizeninanareawhichisespeciallyimportantformodernsocietywithitsdivisionoflabour.Itguaranteestheindividual'srighttotakeupanyactivityasa"vocation"forwhichhebelieveshimselftobesuited(ietomakeitthebasisofhowheconductshislife)..
...theconceptof"vocation"mustbeinterpretedwidely.Itdoesnotonlyincludeallvocationswhichfitcertaintraditionalvocationalprofiles-oreventhosefixedbylaw.Italsoincludesatypical(butpermissible)activitiesfreelychosenbyindividualsfromwhichnewfirmvocationalprofilescanthenarise(referencesomitted)...
b)Ifthepossibilitiesforthelegislatortointerfereintheareaprotectedbythebasicrightareassessedbytheconstitutionalprovisionitself,thewordingofArt12para1couldsuggestthatinterferencesareonlytobepermittedinrelationtotheexerciseofavocation;andthechoiceofavocationwouldbesimplyexcludedfromstatutoryregulation.Butthatcannotbethemeaningoftheprovision.Thisisbecausetheconceptsofchoiceandexerciseofavocationcannotsimplybeseparatedinsuchawaythattheyeachonlydescribeacertainperiodofvocationallifewhichdoesnotoverlapwiththeother.Inparticular,thetakingupofvocationalactivityrepresentsthecommencementofexerciseofavocationaswellastheimplementationofachoiceofvocationwhichexpressesitselfpreciselyinthisact-andfrequentlyonlyinit.Inthesameway,theintentiontocontinueavocationwhichshowsitselfinthecurrentexerciseofit,andfinallyvoluntaryterminationoftheexerciseofavocationarereallyatthesametimechoicesofvocation.Bothconceptsincludetheunifiedcomplex"vocationalactivity"seenfromvariousangles(referencesomitted).
Aninterpretationthereforewhichwouldsimplyrestrainthelegislatorfromanyinterferencewithfreedomofchoiceofvocationcannotbecorrect.Itwouldnotcorrespondwiththerealitiesoflife,anditwouldthereforenotleadinlawtoclearresults.Astatutoryprovisionwhichappearsprimarilytoregulateexerciseofavocationisinprinciplealsopermissibleifitindirectlyaffectsfreedomofchoiceofvocation.Thatoccursprincipallywhenprerequisitesfortakingupavocation,iestartingtoexerciseit,arelaiddownor,inotherwords,whenstartingtoexerciseavocationismadedependentonapermission.Art74no19,whichprovidesabasisforlegislativecompetencefor"admission"forcertainvocations,showsthattheBasicLawdidnotnotintendsimplytoexcluderulesaboutadmission.Thelegislativehistoryoftheprovisionalsoshowsthatalthoughadmittedlytherewasinprincipleanintentiontoavoidgivingpowertoimposerestrictionsonadmissions,ontheotherhandtherewasnointentiontodeclarethenumerousrestrictionsonexistingadmissionstobegenerallyimpermissible(referenceomitted).ItistruethattheauthoroftheBasicLawhasnotattainedcompleteobjectiveandconceptualclarityoftheproblemshere.Hehasintheendchosenaformulationwhichfollowedthedivisionbetween"choice"and"exercise"ofatradewhichiscommonintradinglaw,andinotherrespectsdeliberatelyleftfurtherregulation"largely"tostatute(referenceomitted)...
Art12para1isthusaunifiedbasicright("vocationalfreedom"),atanyrateinthesensethatthereservationofregulatorypowerinsentence2extends"inprinciple"toexerciseandtochoiceofavocation.Thisdoesnothowevermeanthatthelegislator'spowersinrelationtoeachofthesephasesofvocationalactivityareequallyaswideintheircontent.ThisisbecausetheintentionintheConstitution,whichisclearlyexpressedinthewordingofArt12para1,mustalwaysbeborneinmind,iethatthechoiceofvocationshouldbe"free"buttheexerciseofavocationmayberegulated.Theonlyinterpretationwhichfitsthisisonewhichassumesthatthepowertoregulatedoesnotcoverboth"phases"withthesameobjectiveintensity;andthatthemorethelegislatorinterfereswiththefreedomofchoiceofvocation,themoreheissubjecttostricterlimits.ThisinterpretationalsocorrespondswiththebasicconceptionsoftheConstitutionandthehumanpicturewhichitassumes(referencesomitted).Thechoiceofvocationissupposedtobeanactofselfdetermination,afreedecisionoftheindividualwill.Itmustasfaraspossibleremainunaffectedbyinterferencesfromstatepower.Byexercisinghisvocationtheindividualtakesadirectpartinsociallife.Limitationscanbeimposedonhimhereintheinterestsofothersandofthegeneralpublic.
Tosummarise:
Thepowertoregulateextendstoexerciseandchoiceofavocation.Butitisgivenforthesakeofexerciseofavocationandcanatthemostonlyinterferewithfreedomofchoiceofvocationfromthisangle.
Themoreitpurelyregulatesexercise,thefreerthecontentcanbe,butthemoreitalsoconcernschoiceofvocation,themorelimiteditscontent.
c)Thesearethegeneralfactorsdeterminingthescopeofthepowertoregulate.Astoitsdetailedcontent,themeaningoftheconceptof"regulating"mustfirstbeclarified,inparticularinrelationtofreedomofchoiceofvocation.Itcannotmeanthatthelegislatorhasonthewholeawiderareaofdiscretionthanwithothergeneralreservationsofstatutorypower,andthathecanregulatethewholeareaofvocationallawmorecomprehensivelyanddeterminethecontentofthebasicrightconstitutively(referencesomitted).Suchaviewwoulddebasethebasicright,becauseitscontentwouldbeentirelysurrenderedtothediscretionofthelegislator,whoishimselfboundbythebasicright(Art1para3oftheGG).Thatwouldnotfitthemeaningofthisbasicright.Itwouldscarcelybecompatiblewiththespecial(pleonastic)emphasison"free"choiceofvocationinArt12para1.Andbesidesthis,itwouldcontradicttheoveralltendencyofthebasicri
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 德国 药房 判决