Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
1 BvR 1866/17 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2018:rk20180509.1bvr186617 Généré par l'IA

Ineffective judicial protection and gender-based discrimination in parallel decisions

Numéro de cause 1 BvR 1866/17
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Allemagne (DE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Irrecevable (Inadmissible)
Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the constitutional complaint without granting leave to proceed, thereby upholding the challenged legal outcome. The dispute concerned allegations of ineffective judicial protection under Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 20(3) of the Basic Law and a violation of the prohibition of gender-based discrimination under Article 3(2) and 3(3) sentence 1 of the Basic Law. Ruling that the prior decisions were not constitutionally flawed and that the alleged infringement of equality rights was not discernible from the submissions, the Court relied on its parallel decision of the same day to justify its assessment and explicitly waived a detailed further reasoning pursuant to § 93d(1) sentence 3 of the Law on the Federal Constitutional Court.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Ineffective judicial protection and gender-based discrimination in parallel decisions: The dispute concerned allegations of ineffective judicial protection under Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 20(3) of the Basic Law and a violation of the prohibition of gender-based discrimination under Article 3(2) and 3(3) sentence 1 of the Basic Law. Ruling that the prior decisions were not constitutionally flawed and that the alleged infringement of equality rights was not discernible from the submissions, the Court relied on its parallel decision of the same day to justify its assessment and explicitly waived a detailed further reasoning pursuant to § 93d(1) sentence 3 of the Law on the Federal Constitutional Court.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
discrimination fondée sur le sexe égalité de traitement constitutionnelle droit judiciaire motivation insuffisante des griefs constitutionnels protection juridique droits de la femme

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG
Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG) liegt nicht vor; eine Verletzung des Gebots der Gleichberechtigung von Frauen (Art.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Cited in the dispositive to justify the waiver of a detailed further reasoning for the dismissal.

Jurisprudence citée

Généré par l'IA
1 BvR 1884/17
Public service supplementary pension transitional rules: Effectiveness of judicial protection versus collective bargaining discretion and alleged gender-based discrimination in retirement calculation
Généré par l'IA
1 BvR 162/18
Constitutional complaint against parallel judicial decisions challenging right to effective legal protection (Art. 2(1) in conjunction with Art. 20(3) GG)
2 BvR 232/22
Constitutional complaint rejection for failure to satisfy detailed reasoning requirements under § 92 BVerfGG in context of judicial bias allegations
1 BvR 1687/23, 1 BvR 1750/23
Gender-based bias: recusal of judges not justified by their sex
2 BvR 3058/14
Denial of legal aid for challenge to internal party gender quotas based on insufficient prospects of success under constitutional equality of legal protection
1 BvR 1935/17
Constitutional complaint alleging violation of right to effective judicial protection due to parallel proceedings

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Cited in the dispositive to justify the waiver of a detailed further reasoning for the dismissal.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

Nichtannahmebeschluss: Parallelentscheidung

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Die angegriffenen Entscheidungen sind verfassungsrechtlich nicht zu beanstanden. Eine Verletzung des Anspruchs auf effektiven Rechtsschutz durch staatliche Gerichte (Art. 2 Abs. 1 i.V.m. Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG) liegt nicht vor; eine Verletzung des Gebots der Gleichberechtigung von Frauen (Art. 3 Abs. 2, Abs. 3 Satz 1 GG) ist aus den Darlegungen hier jedenfalls nicht erkennbar.

Zur weiteren Begründung wird auf den Beschluss im Verfahren 1 BvR 1884/17 vom heutigen Tag verwiesen. Im Übrigen wird von einer Begründung nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.