Arruego Rodríguez G, Chueca Rodríguez R
Universidad de Zaragoza, España.
Rev Derecho Genoma Hum. 2000 Jan-Jun(12):91-111.
The recent ruling by the Constitutional Court (116/1999, 17 June) ended the process which had been initiated by the challenge filed by 63 conservative MPs against Law 35/1988, 22 November, on the Law on Human Assisted Reproduction Techniques. In our opinion, this ruling helps define the scope of the constitutional provisions used by the appellants in their challenge, provisions which had already been interpreted in lower rulings. The considerations given in this article are designed to establish the terms and framework which lawmakers and law experts should bear in mind when they prepare future, as will necessarily be the case. In view of some of the arguments used in the ruling, we believe it is appropriate to draw attention to some of the most salient constitutional aspects, such as the scope of the Constitutional Court's role as the ultimate judge of constitutionality, and the exact nature of the constitutional notion of fundamental right which, although complicated at times, is nonetheless a precise and accurate legal concept.
宪法法院最近的裁决（1999年6月17日第116/1999号）结束了由63名保守派议员针对11月22日关于人类辅助生殖技术法的第35/1988号法律提出的质疑所启动的程序。我们认为，这一裁决有助于界定上诉人在质疑中所使用的宪法条款的范围，这些条款在下级裁决中已经得到了解释。本文中的考量旨在确立立法者和法律专家在制定未来法律时（这将是必然的情况）应牢记的条款和框架。鉴于裁决中使用的一些论点，我们认为有必要提请注意一些最突出的宪法方面，例如宪法法院作为合宪性最终裁决者的角色范围，以及基本权利宪法概念的确切性质，尽管有时很复杂，但它仍然是一个精确且准确的法律概念。
