德国药房案判决.docx

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（19页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

德国药房案判决

Case:

BVerfG7,377Apotheken-decision

Date:

11June1958

Judges:

ProfessorB.S.Markesinis

Copyright:

RaymondYoungs

1.Art12para1oftheGGnotonlydeclaresfreedomoftradeasanobjective

principleofthesocialandeconomicorder;itguaranteesthebasicrightofthe

individualtotakeupanypermittedactivityasavocation,evenifitdoesnot

correspondtoavocationalprofilefixedbytraditionorlaw.

...

5.TheauthorityunderArt12para1sentence2oftheGGtolaydownrules

coversexerciseandchoiceofavocation,butnotwiththesameintensity.Itis

givenfortheexerciseofavocationandcanonlyaffectfreedomofchoiceof

vocationfromthisangle.Themoreitpurelyregulatesexercise,thefreerthe

contentcanbe,butthemoreitalsoconcernschoiceofvocation,themore

limiteditscontent.

6.Thebasicrightistoprotectthefreedomoftheindividual,andthe

reservationofthepowerofregulationistosecuresufficientprotectionfor

communityinterests.Theneedtotakebothrequirementsintoaccountmeans

thatwhenthelegislatorinterveneshemustdifferentiateinaccordancewiththe

followingprinciples:

a）Freedomofexerciseofavocationcanberestrictedinsofarthisseems

appropriateaccordingtorationalconsiderationsofthecommongood.Basic

rightprotectionisrestrictedtopreventingconditionswhichareinthemselves

contrarytotheConstitutionbecausetheymaybeexcessivelyburdensomeand

arenotreasonable.

b）Freedomofchoiceofvocationcanonlyberestrictedtotheextentthat

protectionofparticularlyimportantinterestsofthecommunitypositively

requiresit.Ifsuchaninterferenceisunavoidable,thelegislatormustalways

choosetheformofinterferencewhichrestrictsthebasicrightleast.

c）Iftheinterferencewiththefreedomofchoiceofvocationtakestheformof

alistofcertainconditionsfortakingupthevocation,adistinctionmustbe

madebetweensubjectiveandobjectiveprerequisites.Theprincipleof

proportionalityappliestothesubjectiveprerequisites（inparticulareducation

andtraining）inthesensethattheymustnotbeoutofproportiontothedesired

goalofproperperformanceofvocationalactivity.Particularlystrict

requirementsmustbeappliedtoprovingtheneedforobjectiveprerequisites

foradmission.

Ingeneralsuchameasurecanonlybejustifiedtoavertprovableorhighly

probableseriousriskstoanextremelyimportantcommunityinterest.

d）RulesunderArt12para1sentence2oftheGGmustalwaysbemadeatthe

levelwhichcausesthesmallestinterferencewithfreedomofchoiceof

vocation.Thelegislatorcanonlyembarkonthenextlevelifitcanbeshown

thatitishighlyprobablethattherisksfearedcannotbeeffectivelyovercome

bymeansatthepreviouslevelwhichaccordwiththeConstitution.

...

Judgmentofthefirstsenateofthe11thJune1958

1BvR596/56

Art3para1ofthePharmaciesActstates:

（1）Permissiontocarryonbusinesscanonlybegivenforanewpharmacyif:

a）itisinthepublicinterestthatthepharmacyshouldbeestablishedinorderto

securetheprovisionofthepublicwithmedicines,and

b）itistobeassumedthattheeconomicbasisofthepharmacyisensuredand

theeconomicbasisofneighbouringpharmaciesisnotimpairedbyittosuch

anextentthattheprerequisitesforaproperpharmacybusinessarenolonger

ensured.

Thepermissioncanbecombinedwithaconditionthatthepharmacyistobe

establishedinacertainlocationintheinterestsofuniformprovisionof

medicine.

...

IV

ThequestionofwhetherArt3para1ofthePharmaciesActisreconcilable

withArt12para1oftheGGrequiressomeconsiderationsofprincipleabout

themeaningofthisconstitutionalprovision.

1.Art12para1protectsthefreedomofthecitizeninanareawhichis

especiallyimportantformodernsocietywithitsdivisionoflabour.It

guaranteestheindividual'srighttotakeupanyactivityasavocationfor

whichhebelieveshimselftobesuited（ietomakeitthebasisofhowhe

conductshislife）..

...theconceptofvocationmustbeinterpretedwidely.Itdoesnotonly

includeallvocationswhichfitcertaintraditionalvocationalprofiles-oreven

thosefixedbylaw.Italsoincludesatypical（butpermissible）activitiesfreely

chosenbyindividualsfromwhichnewfirmvocationalprofilescanthenarise

（referencesomitted）...

b）Ifthepossibilitiesforthelegislatortointerfereintheareaprotectedbythe

basicrightareassessedbytheconstitutionalprovisionitself,thewordingof

Art12para1couldsuggestthatinterferencesareonlytobepermittedin

relationtotheexerciseofavocation;andthechoiceofavocationwouldbe

simplyexcludedfromstatutoryregulation.Butthatcannotbethemeaningof

theprovision.Thisisbecausetheconceptsofchoiceandexerciseofa

vocationcannotsimplybeseparatedinsuchawaythattheyeachonly

describeacertainperiodofvocationallifewhichdoesnotoverlapwiththe

other.Inparticular,thetakingupofvocationalactivityrepresentsthe

commencementofexerciseofavocationaswellastheimplementationofa

choiceofvocationwhichexpressesitselfpreciselyinthisact-andfrequently

onlyinit.Inthesameway,theintentiontocontinueavocationwhichshows

itselfinthecurrentexerciseofit,andfinallyvoluntaryterminationofthe

exerciseofavocationarereallyatthesametimechoicesofvocation.Both

conceptsincludetheunifiedcomplexvocationalactivityseenfromvarious

angles（referencesomitted）.

Aninterpretationthereforewhichwouldsimplyrestrainthelegislatorfrom

anyinterferencewithfreedomofchoiceofvocationcannotbecorrect.It

wouldnotcorrespondwiththerealitiesoflife,anditwouldthereforenotlead

inlawtoclearresults.Astatutoryprovisionwhichappearsprimarilyto

regulateexerciseofavocationisinprinciplealsopermissibleifitindirectly

affectsfreedomofchoiceofvocation.Thatoccursprincipallywhen

prerequisitesfortakingupavocation,iestartingtoexerciseit,arelaiddown

or,inotherwords,whenstartingtoexerciseavocationismadedependentona

permission.Art74no19,whichprovidesabasisforlegislativecompetence

foradmissionforcertainvocations,showsthattheBasicLawdidnotnot

intendsimplytoexcluderulesaboutadmission.Thelegislativehistoryofthe

provisionalsoshowsthatalthoughadmittedlytherewasinprinciplean

intentiontoavoidgivingpowertoimposerestrictionsonadmissions,onthe

otherhandtherewasnointentiontodeclarethenumerousrestrictionson

existingadmissionstobegenerallyimpermissible（referenceomitted）.Itis

truethattheauthoroftheBasicLawhasnotattainedcompleteobjectiveand

conceptualclarityoftheproblemshere.Hehasintheendchosena

formulationwhichfollowedthedivisionbetweenchoiceandexerciseofa

tradewhichiscommonintradinglaw,andinotherrespectsdeliberatelyleft

furtherregulationlargelytostatute（referenceomitted）...

Art12para1isthusaunifiedbasicright（vocationalfreedom）,atanyratein

thesensethatthereservationofregulatorypowerinsentence2extendsin

principletoexerciseandtochoiceofavocation.Thisdoesnothowevermean

thatthelegislator'spowersinrelationtoeachofthesephasesofvocational

activityareequallyaswideintheircontent.Thisisbecausetheintentionin

theConstitution,whichisclearlyexpressedinthewordingofArt12para1,

mustalwaysbeborneinmind,iethatthechoiceofvocationshouldbe

ree

buttheexerciseofavocationmayberegulated.Theonlyinterpretationwhich

fitsthisisonewhichassumesthatthepowertoregulatedoesnotcoverboth

phaseswiththesameobjectiveintensity;andthatthemorethelegislator

interfereswiththefreedomofchoiceofvocation,themoreheissubjectto

stricterlimits.Thisinterpretationalsocorrespondswiththebasicconceptions

oftheConstitutionandthehumanpicturewhichitassumes（references

omitted）.Thechoiceofvocationissupposedtobeanactofselfdetermination,

afreedecisionoftheindividualwill.Itmustasfaraspossibleremain

unaffectedbyinterferencesfromstatepower.Byexercisinghisvocationthe

individualtakesadirectpartinsociallife.Limitationscanbeimposedonhim

hereintheinterestsofothersandofthegeneralpublic.

Tosummarise:

Thepowertoregulateextendstoexerciseandchoiceofa

vocation.Butitisgivenforthesakeofexerciseofavocationandcanatthe

mostonlyinterferewithfreedomofchoiceofvocationfromthisangle.

Themoreitpurelyregulatesexercise,thefreerthecontentcanbe,butthe

moreitalsoconcernschoiceofvocation,themorelimiteditscontent.

c）Thesearethegeneralfactorsdeterminingthescopeofthepowertoregulate.

Astoitsdetailedcontent,themeaningoftheconceptof

egulatingmustfirst

beclarified,inparticularinrelationtofreedomofchoiceofvocation.Itcannot

meanthatthelegislatorhasonthewholeawiderareaofdiscretionthanwith

othergeneralreservationsofstatutorypower,andthathecanregulatethe

wholeareaofvocationallawmorecomprehensivelyanddeterminethecontent

ofthebasicrightconstitutively（referencesomitted）.Suchaviewwould

debasethebasicright,becauseitscontentwouldbeentirelysurrenderedtothe

discretionofthelegislator,whoishimselfboundbythebasicright（Art1para

3of