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。 In Germany, the verdict of the civil first instance is composed of the emergent part of the judgment, the main text of the judgment, the facts of the case, the reasons for the adjudication and the signature of the judge. The verdict of appeal and the adjudication of the trial usually follow this structure. The law does not generally provide for the form and content of the ruling. Reference may be made here to the rules of the ruling of first instance, but there are only a single section of the ruling. Based on the different norms in the German “Basic Law,” referees should reason. Specifically, the factual record of the case provides the parties with an overall testimony of their oral presentation, the level of detail of which varies from court to court. Referee should summarize the referee in the factual and legal considerations, follow a relatively fixed format and the so-called judgment system. In the case of judges’ method of construction, the limitation of the role of the chief judge should be heeded, and the precedent is in principle not binding. The coordination mechanism of the Federal Supreme Court is rarely applied. In reasoning, the court must follow the legal interpretation of the law and the logic of culpability rules, the syllogism model is mainly formal requirements, the judge should in essence be a detailed analysis of all fair judgments related point of view.