「年金」原是指一種持續性的現金給付方式。個人既可以經由私人保險的機制取得年金給付，國也可以透過福利津貼或是社會保險的方式支付國民年金，以達成保障老年經濟安全的目的。工業化之後，這種與受雇者薪資相關的年金保險制度，已經成為現代國家實行社會福利的重要手段。而，且由於保險制度的運作著重在就業時的「保費支出」與退休後的「年金給付」，勢必對憲法上自由權、財產權等基本權利產生限制。我國傳統上雖然多不採「年金式」的老年給付方式，但是隨著國民年金之規劃以及對現有制度之整合，年金給付必已經成為趨勢。現行老年安全制度的缺點首在於缺乏獨立法源，老年給付僅屬於「綜合性」社會保險的一部份。再則由於「一次性」的老年給付方式，使得有多數國民投保的勞工保險僅側重於醫療給付部分。相形之下，我國憲法實務對於年金的見解則多圍繞在公務人員保障得議題上，而且與「特別權力關係」的發展息息相關。在年金財產權的保障上，有關公務員退休金的「公法上財產請求權」固然已經屢受大法官會議之肯定，惟有關退休金之「期待權保障」直至釋字第434號解釋才略見提及。反觀德國年金保險制度已經成為其「社會國」的重要表徵，而且有關年金請求權與期待權之憲法保障，實務經驗豐富，足為我國借鏡。近年我國社會保險制度的發展，自全民健保實施以及國民年金保險之規劃後，原先的綜合性保險已逐步走向「單一化」。加上國民年金預計採「按月給付」，而且給付額度將隨著社會生活水準而調整，未來相關的財產權保障問題必將更形複雜。由於諸多制度尚在改革當中，而有關領域「社會法」之研究亦方興未艾，本文嘗試從釋字434號解釋為出發點，並參考德國之發展經驗，以探討我國年金制度現有以及未來的相關問題。

　　　　　Generally speaking, "pension" means the making of regularly continuous payments in cash to support the elderly's retirement. To provide every citizen with a reasonable income after retirement, every individual can purchase insurance cover, or the State can provide national welfare benefits or a national insurance scheme. However, by the natural of insurance which places entire emphasis on the exchange of insuracne costs and the receiving ofpensions at later days and which is normally compulsory, such characters are incompatible with freedom of choice and the protection of property rights which ae proclaimed by the Constitution. Traditionally, it is rare in this country to adopt a so-called pension scheme to support the elderly on a regular basis, nevertheless, with the attempt to integrate various systems of welfare payments, a shift to establish a reliable pension system becomes an unstoppable trend. As long as the Constitution is concerned, those relevant leading cases are mainly about the safeguarding of the property rights of the civil servants which are closely related to the doctrine of special power relations. The right of a retired civil servant to claim a pension under the heading of property rights in public law has been repeatedly confirmed by the Grand Justices Council, however, it was not until Case No.434 of the council's ruling that the right of expectancy over a pension was finally established. In contrast, the national pension scheme has long become a symbol of the Welfare State in Germany and its experiences in the handling of pension rights and rights of expectancy over pensions as constitutional issues have much to be learnt about. In this country, since the establishment of the National Heath Insurance Scheme and the draft of the proposed National Pension Insurance went public, it has become clear that the current various systems of social insurance tend to be simplified. The proposed scheme appears to adopt making pension payments by installments, and the level of payments is closely related to the rate of inflation. Therefore, it is highly likely that in the future issues concerning with the protection of property rights will become ever complicate. At the moment, any reform is still pending, and studies on this topic are increasing fast, this essay tries to explore our current pension systems and its possible development in the near future by making a start in discussing Case No.434 of the Grand Justices Council's ruling and also making references to the German experiences.