本文以宪法权利与民事权利关系为视角，从观念与历史、规范分析、制度比较三个方面，研究了民事案件中的宪法权利保护问题，即在民事案件中当事人的宪法权利应如何获得有效的救济。在观念和历史层面上，与部分学者关于民事权利优位论的观点相反，在罗马法时期宪法权利与民事权利的原初形态已具雏形，近代时期作为宪法权利的一般人格权更是对民法上的一般人格权的创设发挥了价值先导和规范依据作用。而市民社会概念本身并不意味着民事权利与宪法权利、私人与国家的对峙。恰恰相反，当市民社会本身又无法克服特殊性彼此间的争斗时就会要求公权力的介入。因此，民事权利与宪法权利均以实现对私人的利益保护为目的，只不过民事权利注重于纠纷在私人内部的解决，而宪法权利可以看作是对国家及所有人的一种普遍性要求，即任何组织和个人都不得不正当地侵害公民的宪法权利。在规范层面上，宪法权利比民事权利范围更加广阔。而那些在宪法与民法上具有“同名”的权利，不能简单认为作为民事权利的它们是同一宪法权利的具体化，而应理解为是同一权利针对不同的侵害对象（国家或私人），在宪法与民法上受到两种权利规范的保护。由于宪法权利与民事权利已经形成了各自的权利体系，因此不必强求两种权利体系的统一，宜在遵循既有的学术传统下针对个案具体问题具体分析。在制度比较层面，宪法权利在私人间关系的辐射效力已获得法治发达国家的普遍承认，具体分为直接效力说和间接效力说。就我国而言，可尝试以间接效力说为制度载体，将民法上的一般条款作为宪法权利规范切入民法的制度媒介，重点考察具有公权力背景的例外情形，从而在尊重既有的民事法律制度与私法自治原则的前提下，重点保护因具有公权力背景的私人行为致使自身宪法权利遭到不当侵害的个人。同时，应允许个人在民事案件中，在穷尽一切民法上的救济后以宪法权利规范作为请求基础。法院在审理此类案件时虽不能直接以宪法权利规范作为裁判依据，但可以通过对宪法的说理与阐述，将宪法的原则和精神注入民法上的概括条款从而对当事人进行有效的救济。法院的上述行为不仅不会违反宪法，反而有助于宪法权威的维护。总而言之，宪法权利不应被视为洪水猛兽，民事案件中的宪法权利保护完全可以在既有的制度条件下得到妥善的解决。宪法也将在个案的解释中不断彰显出自己的价值与权威。

From the perspective of the relationship between constitutional rights and civil rights, this paper studies the protection of constitutional rights in civil cases from three aspects: concept and history, normative analysis and institutional comparison. On the conceptual and historical level, contrary to some scholars' views on the superiority theory of civil rights, the original form of constitutional rights and civil rights in the Roman law period has taken shape. The general personality right as a constitutional right in modern times has played a role in value proposition and normative basis of the creation of personality rights in civil law. At the normative level, since constitutional rights and civil rights are already forming their own rights systems, it is not necessary to force the unification of the two rights systems, and it can be analyzed according to the specific problems of individual cases in accordance with the existing academic traditions. At the institutional comparison level, the radiation effect of constitutional rights in private relations has been widely recognized, and is divided into direct effect theory and indirect effect theory. As far as China is concerned, we can try to use the indirect effectiveness as the institutional carrier, and the general provisions of the civil law as the institutional norms of the constitutional rights norms, focusing on the exceptions with the background of public power, thus respecting the existing civil legal system because it is important to protect individuals who have improperly violated their constitutional rights due to private actions with a background of public power. And individuals should be allowed to use the constitutional rights norms as a basis for claims in civil cases after exhausting all remedies for civil law. Although the court can not directly use the constitutional rights norms as the basis for judging such cases, it can inject the principle and spirit of the constitution into the general provisions of the civil law to effectively relieve the parties. The above-mentioned acts of the court will help to establish the authority of the Constitution instead violating.