法院在民事审判中援引宪法人格尊严条款的必要性分析

Analysis of the Necessity of Invoking the Constitution Clause of Human Dignity in Civil Trial by Courts

无论民事立法完善与否,民事审判援引宪法人格尊严条款进行裁判说理的主动性都不高。法官不仅对民法与宪法中的人格尊严的性质认识混乱,而且宪法援引方式较为随意,对于裁判文书中是否应当援引宪法条款缺乏统一的规范依据或裁量标准。宪法人格尊严条款在裁判说理中主要起到填补法律漏洞,或作为附随规范以增强裁判说服力的作用。宪法上人格尊严应当被解释为具有一般人格权属性的基本权利,兼具公法与私法的属性,形成宪法上的一般人格权。当事人援引宪法条款论证说理时,如果法院援引相应的民事规范足以支持或反驳当事人的诉讼请求,则无需援引宪法条款。法院进行合宪性解释或运用基本权利间接第三人效力时则必须援引宪法说理。法院援引宪法条款仅起到增强说服力作用时应由法官自行决定是否援引。

No matter whether the civil legislation is perfect or not, the initiative of the civil trial to invoke the constitution’s personal dignity clause for judgment and reasoning is not high. Judges not only have a confused understanding of the nature of human dignity in civil law and constitution, but also have a casual way of quoting the constitution. There is no uniform normative basis or discretion standard on whether the constitutional clause should be invoked in the judgment documents. The constitution’s personal dignity clause mainly plays a role of filling up legal loopholes or as a supplementary norm to enhance the persuasive power of judgment. In constitution, personal dignity should be interpreted as a basic right with the attribute of general personality right, which has both the attribute of public law and private law, forming the general personality right in constitution. When a party litigant invokes a constitutional clause to argue, if the court cited the corresponding civil norms enough to support or refute the litigant’s claim, there is no need to invoke the constitutional clause. Courts must invoke constitutional reasoning when giving constitutionally faithful interpretation or applying the indirect third-party-effect of the basic rights in the constitution. It is up to judges to decide whether or not to invoke constitutional provisions when they are invoked only to enhance their powers of persuasion.