在法治國原則的精神下，不論德國或我國皆肯認聽審請求權為一項具憲法位階的程序基本權。因此，法院於訴訟程序中若未充分保障當事人的聽審機會，自構成嚴重程序瑕疵。此時，當事人若可透過通常救濟途徑排除此項瑕疵，固不生權利保護不足之疑慮；但若已不存在任何一項通常救濟手段，當事人得如何重新恢復其受侵害之權利，實為一重要課題。我國民事訴訟法於2003年、2009年進行修正時，雖大幅強化對當事人程序權的保障，但針對當事人於聽審侵害案件之救濟可能性，尚難謂已全面具體見諸於法律規定；又，我國司法實務對此亦尚未形成一致的見解，聽審權利受損之當事人是否僅得承受程序瑕疵所生之不利益，不無疑慮，亦為本文關心之焦點。鑒於我國民事訴訟法之發展向受德國影響甚鉅，本文以德國聯邦憲法法院第四次聯合庭決議為中心，就德國民事聽審責問程序之發展背景為簡要介紹。透過制度上之比較，反思在我國現行民事訴訟法之框架下，得如何強化人民之聽審保障。

Under the genuine rule of law, both Germany and Taiwan have recognized the right to be heard as a fundamental constitutional right. If court proceedings do not fully guarantee such right, these proceedings will constitute a serious procedural defect. At this point, only if parties are able to use regular channels to remedy this procedural defect can rule out any doubt of inadequate protection of their rights. If all regular access to such remedies are closed, the path for the party to recover such infringed right would become a critical issue. The Taiwanese Code of Civil Procedure was revised in 2003 and 2009. Although the revisions substantially strengthened the procedural rights of parties, it is still a great challenge for parties to find possible remedies when the right to be heard is infringed. On the other hand, judicial practice in Taiwan has not reached an agreement on this issue. Under this circumstance, to what degree would cost the parties by such a procedural defect is a great concern and need to be addressed. Since the Taiwanese Code of Civil Procedure has been strongly influenced by Germany, this study will center on the determination by the 4th full court of the Federal Constitutional Court and briefly introduce the development of the dispute procedure for the right to be heard in Germany. Through the comparison of the two systems, we can shed light on how to strengthen the protection of the right to be heard in the framework of the Taiwanese Code of Civil Procedure.