Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 1866/17 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2018:rk20180509.1bvr186617 Generato dall'IA

Ineffective judicial protection and gender-based discrimination in parallel decisions

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 1866/17
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Inammissibile (Inadmissible)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'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.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'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.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
discriminazione fondata sul sesso uguaglianza giuridica costituzionale diritto processuale motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali tutela legale diritti della donna

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'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.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'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
Generato dall'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

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

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

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

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.