Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
1 BvR 1104/17 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2020:rk20200110.1bvr110417 AI generated

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.

Case Number 1 BvR 1104/17
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Constitutional Court declined to admit the constitutional complaint for a decision, leaving the lower court's ruling in force, as the arguments were deemed unfounded. The dispute concerned the Federal Labor Court’s declaration that the 2012 general declaratory extension of a collective agreement regarding social fund proceedings in the construction industry was invalid, which the complainants challenged as a violation of the right to freedom of association and the general right of personal development. The Court rejected the admissibility of the complaint by referencing its reasoning in a parallel case (1 BvR 4/17), which established that such challenges to the general declaratory extension of collective agreements do not successfully invoke Article 9(3) of the Basic Law or Articles 9(1) and 2(1) of the Basic Law.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 9 Abs. 3 GG, Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; 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: The dispute concerned the Federal Labor Court’s declaration that the 2012 general declaratory extension of a collective agreement regarding social fund proceedings in the construction industry was invalid, which the complainants challenged as a violation of the right to freedom of association and the general right of personal development. The Court rejected the admissibility of the complaint by referencing its reasoning in a parallel case (1 BvR 4/17), which established that such challenges to the general declaratory extension of collective agreements do not successfully invoke Article 9(3) of the Basic Law or Articles 9(1) and 2(1) of the Basic Law.

Keywords

AI generated
extension of a collective agreement constitutional invalidity declaratory decision freedom of association right to development articles of association

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 9 Abs. 3 GG
Die Entscheidung verstößt aus Sicht der Beschwerdeführenden gegen Art. 9 Abs. 3 GG, jedenfalls aber gegen Art.
Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural basis cited to justify omitting a detailed justification in the non-admission decision.

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 1459/17
Invalidity of statutory extension of construction sector social fund collective agreement and alleged violation of collective bargaining freedom
1 BvR 593/17
Unlawfulness of general binding force declaration for construction industry social fund collective agreement under freedom of association and assembly.
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 554/18
Constitutional validity of statutory extension of construction industry collective agreements to non-unionized employers
10 AZR 550/18
Constitutional validity of statutory extension of construction industry social fund collective agreements to non-unionized employers

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Procedural basis cited to justify omitting a detailed justification in the non-admission decision.

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 2012 erfolgte Allgemeinverbindlicherklärung des Tarifvertrags über das Sozialkassenverfahren im Baugewerbe (VTV) für unwirksam erklärt hat. Die Entscheidung verstößt aus Sicht der Beschwerdeführenden 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 in der Sache 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.