Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
1 BvR 1459/17 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2020:rk20200110.1bvr145917 AI generated

Invalidity of statutory extension of construction sector social fund collective agreement and alleged violation of collective bargaining freedom

Case Number 1 BvR 1459/17
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Constitutional Court refused to accept the constitutional complaint for decision, leaving the lower court's judgment in force, as the complainants' arguments were deemed unfounded and identical to a previously decided parallel case. The dispute involved a challenge against the Federal Labour Court’s declaration that the statutory extensions of a collective agreement regarding social fund proceedings in the construction sector, enacted in 2013, were invalid, which the complainants argued violated their fundamental rights to free association and collective bargaining. In its disposition, the Court relied on § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act to dispense with further reasoning, citing the precedents set in the related proceeding 1 BvR 4/17 which established that the alleged violations of Article 9 Paragraph 3, Article 9 Paragraph 1, and Article 2 Paragraph 1 of the German Basic Law were not substantiated.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 9 Abs. 3 GG, Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Invalidity of statutory extension of construction sector social fund collective agreement and alleged violation of collective bargaining freedom: The dispute involved a challenge against the Federal Labour Court’s declaration that the statutory extensions of a collective agreement regarding social fund proceedings in the construction sector, enacted in 2013, were invalid, which the complainants argued violated their fundamental rights to free association and collective bargaining. In its disposition, the Court relied on § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act to dispense with further reasoning, citing the precedents set in the related proceeding 1 BvR 4/17 which established that the alleged violations of Article 9 Paragraph 3, Article 9 Paragraph 1, and Article 2 Paragraph 1 of the German Basic Law were not substantiated.

Keywords

AI generated
extension of a collective agreement labour dispute constitutional invalidity statutory right related proceedings fundamental rights

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 9 Abs. 3 GG
Die gerichtliche Entscheidung verstoße gegen Art. 9 Abs. 3 GG, jedenfalls aber gegen Art.
Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural provision cited to justify dispensing with a further detailed justification in the dispositive.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
1 BvR 4/17
Constitutional right to freedom of association does not confer a claim to declaration of a collective agreement as generally binding
AI generated
1 BvR 1104/17
Constitutional complaint against invalidity of general declaratory extension of collective agreement on social fund in construction industry; violation of freedom of association and general personal rights.
10 AZR 399/18
Constitutionality of statutory extension of collective bargaining agreements to secure construction industry social funds despite prior annulment of general binding force declaration
10 AZR 550/18
Constitutional validity of statutory extension of construction industry social fund collective agreements to non-unionized employers
10 AZR 554/18
Constitutional validity of statutory extension of construction industry collective agreements to non-unionized employers
10 AZR 512/17
Scope of collective agreement for construction social funds and constitutional validity of statutory extension to non-unionized employers

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Procedural provision cited to justify dispensing with a further detailed justification in the dispositive.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Nichtannahmebeschluss: Parallelentscheidung

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

I. Die Beschwerdeführenden wenden sich dagegen, dass das Bundesarbeitsgericht mit der angegriffenen Entscheidung die im Jahr 2013 erfolgten Allgemeinverbindlicherklärungen des Tarifvertrags über das Sozialkassenverfahren im Baugewerbe (VTV) für unwirksam erklärt hat. Die gerichtliche Entscheidung verstoße gegen Art. 9 Abs. 3 GG, jedenfalls aber gegen Art. 9 Abs. 1 und Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG.

II. Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist nicht zur Entscheidung anzunehmen, weil die mit ihr vorgebrachten Rügen unbegründet sind. Hinsichtlich der Einzelheiten wird auf die Ausführungen der Kammer im Verfahren 1 BvR 4/17 verwiesen, die auch im vorliegenden Fall einem Erfolg der Verfassungsbeschwerde entgegenstehen.

III. Von einer weiteren Begründung wird nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.