摘 要 德國高等教育自1960年代以來，經歷了一段擴張期，為提升高等教育的入學比 例，並期盼改善教育機會分配不均的狀態，1970年後，免學費政策成為德國高教用 來吸引學生進入的重要手段之一。但1990年後，各邦由於財政吃緊，收取學費之議 逐漸醞釀，1997年末，因而引發了廣泛的學運風潮，強烈抗議學費政策之引入。 2002年，反對學費政策的執政黨「社會民主黨」（Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, SPD），透過《高等教育綱領法》（Hochschulrahmengesetz, HRG）的 修正，明令各邦禁收學費，此舉引起贊成學費之邦的反彈，因此聯袂向聯邦憲法法 庭提出申請，要求對HRG修正條文之合憲性進行審查。2005年1月，聯邦憲法法庭 做出判定，認為學費政策雖然劃歸為高等教育基本事務，屬於聯邦的權限之一，但 聯邦對此並未具備立法權，因此，修正條文與《基本法》之立意不合，是為無效之 規定。 聯邦憲法法庭此解釋一出，為支持收取學費政策之邦注入強心針。於是，下薩 克森、巴登—芙騰堡、漢堡、薩蘭、黑森，以及北萊茵—西法倫六個邦所組成的學 費聯盟，一方面共同提出備忘錄，訂出學費收取的基本目標與特徵；另一方面，各 邦則在此架構下，紛紛著手進行立法程序，並自2006年開始，陸續展開收取學費的 措施。目前為止，雖有此六個邦打頭陣，但大部分的邦仍處在拒絕或觀望的狀態 中。 雖然此六邦皆決定開始對高教入學學生收取學費，不過，由於德國是為聯邦國 家，其實施方式——無論是收取的費用、收取／減免的對象或其他相關配套措施如

Abstract Since 1960 the higher education in Germany had gone through a period of expansion. In order to raise the proportion of the enrollment and to improve the situation of the unfair chance in the education, the policy of free of charge became an important means which aims to attract the student to the higher education. But due to the difficult financial situation, the idea of the recharge of tuition has been brewing since 1990. This triggered the student movement which fought against the tuition policy in the end of 1997. In 2002, the governing party SPD forbad the charge of the tuition in Germany through the revision of the HRG. The union of the pro-tuition was against the act and asked the federal constitution court for judicial review of this article. In January 2005, the federal constitution court declared that even if the tuition policy is one of the basic matters which belongs to the competence of the federal government, the federal government has no right to legislate. Thus the revision of the HRG is invalid because it is not accord with the conception of the basic law. The declaration of the federal constitution court set spurs to the pro-tuition union, which addressed a memorandum about the basic aim and the characteristics of the tuition. Meanwhile, the legislation of relevant laws has also started. Since 2006 some federals have brought it into force, but most other federals have still refused or waited and saw.