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（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