司法院大法官於憲釋實務上，對於違憲法規所為之宣告方式及其效力問題，攸關 我國憲法秩序之維護及人民利之保護，向為國內憲法學法學界所關注。德國自二次戰後建立 憲法法院制度以來，無論在違憲審查制度之理論與實踐上，均有相當可觀之發展。而其聯邦 憲法法院之制度，復與我國司法院大法官有頗多類似之處。因此，本文乃以德國之理論為基 礎，試就該國聯邦憲法法院歷來之裁判，進行分析，並整理出若干觀點，期能提供我國法制 運作及學術討論之參考。文中首先闡述德國法規審查制度之基本體系，並略析德國聯邦憲法 法院違憲宣告之裁判類型，以作為問題討論之基礎。其次探討德國聯邦憲法法院宣告法規無 效之裁判方式及效力問題。繼則剖析德國聯邦憲法法院創設之「單純宣告違憲」裁判方式， 並進行案型分析。文末則對德國聯邦憲法法院違憲宣告之方式及其效力問題，試作歸納，藉 以提供我國司法院大法官憲釋實務之參考。

　　　　　The constitution is the supreme law and binds all state organs and the law-making authorities. The supremacy of the constitution can be ensured through judicial review. But how should judges respond after laws or regulations are judged unconstitutional? this question is related to the separation of powers between the legislature and judiciary. Through carefully reviewing the decisions of the German Federal Council of Grand Justices of the R.O.C., this paper attempts to offer some theoretical alternatives. This paper is divided into six sections. First, it poses the research questions. Second, it discusses the major characteristics of the German judicial review. Third, it describes the major types of decisions of the German Federal constitutional court by declaring the norms' constitutionality. Fourth, when the German Federal Constitutional Court declares the unconstitutional norms null, and void ab initio, this paper explores its legal consequences. Fifth, the paper analyzes those decisions when the German Federal Constitutional Court determines only the norms' unconstitutionality without declaring them void. And finally, this paper offers some alternative explanations to the Council of Grand Justices for further discussion.