德国民事一审判决书在形式上由判决的冒头部分、判决主文、本案事实、裁判理由和法官的签名组成，控诉审和上告审判决书通常也遵循这种结构。法律并未一般性地规定裁定的形式和内容，此时可以参考一审判决的规则，但是裁定中只有统一的理由部分。基于德国《基本法》中的不同规范，裁判应当说理。具体而言，本案事实的记载为当事人的口头陈述提供完全证明力，其详细程度因法院而异。裁判理由应当概括裁判中对事实和法律观点的考量，遵循相对固定的格式以及所谓判决体例。就法官造法而言，应当警惕裁判要旨作用的局限性，先例原则上也不具有拘束力。联邦最高普通法院的协调机制很少被适用。在说理中，法院必须遵循法律解释方法和逻辑涵摄规则，这种三段论模式主要是形式上的要求，法官在实质上应当详细分析所有与公正裁判有关的观点。%A German civil judgment(Urteil) in the first instance formally consists of five parts:basic procedural information,an operative part,a record of facts,reasoning and signature of the bench. An appellate judgment,both in the second instance(Berufung) and the review phase(Revision),generally follows this structure. It also applies to a judicial order(Beschluss),because the form and content of it are not regulated by the statute. One exception in the order is a uniform part consolidating the facts and reasoning. Respecting the various norms in the Basic Law of Germany,any judgment should be given with reasons. Specifically,the factual record in the judgment should provide the oral statements of the parties’ with full probative force,while the requirement of its detail depends on the practice of the court in charge. The reasoning part is supposed to summarize the judicial consideration both on the factual and legal issues. Its internal structure is relatively fixed and called Urteil-style. The function to further develop the law is for the German courts very important. However,the limitation of summarized principles(Leitsätze) in the judgment should be attached attention to and existing precedents have normally no binding effect. The coordination mechanism inside the Federal Court of Justice(BGH) has been rarely used. During the reasoning process,a court should follow methods of legal interpretation and rules of logical subsumption. This mode of syllogism is mainly a formal requirement. At the same time,the bench is obliged to carefully analyze all viewpoints which relate to the demand for fair trial.
展开▼
