Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 3045/13 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2018:rk20180704.1bvr304513 Generato dall'IA

Judicial interpretation of fixed-term contract termination requirements exceeds permissible limits of statutory construction

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 3045/13
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Accolto (Allowed)
Spese processuali a carico dell'autorità / Stato
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Constitutional Court granted the constitutional complaint, ordering the reversal of the Regional Labor Court of Nuremberg’s judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings, thereby rendering the Federal Labor Court’s refusal to grant permission to appeal moot. The dispute concerned a labor law termination case where the complainant challenged decisions that applied the Federal Labor Court’s established interpretation of the Temporary Employment Act, arguing that the rigid judicial construction of the statutory requirement for termination violated his right to be judged by a law-bound court. The Court held that the lower courts violated the complainant’s fundamental rights under Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 20(3) of the Basic Law because the underlying Federal Labor Court jurisprudence exceeded the limits of permissible judicial interpretation and legislative substitution, thus failing to comply with the principle of legal certainty and parliamentary sovereignty.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG; Judicial interpretation of fixed-term contract termination requirements exceeds permissible limits of statutory construction: The dispute concerned a labor law termination case where the complainant challenged decisions that applied the Federal Labor Court’s established interpretation of the Temporary Employment Act, arguing that the rigid judicial construction of the statutory requirement for termination violated his right to be judged by a law-bound court. The Court held that the lower courts violated the complainant’s fundamental rights under Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 20(3) of the Basic Law because the underlying Federal Labor Court jurisprudence exceeded the limits of permissible judicial interpretation and legislative substitution, thus failing to comply with the principle of legal certainty and parliamentary sovereignty.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
scioglimento del contratto a termine interpretazione del contratto diritto processuale limiti costituzionali requisito legale diritto regionale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG
1 in Verbindung mit Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG verletzen.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
7 AZR 716/09
Time limit for the prior employment prohibition in reason-less fixed-term contracts under § 14(2) sentence 2 TzBfG
BAGE 137, 275
April 2011 - 7 AZR 716/09 -, BAGE 137, 275 ; Urteil vom 21.
7 AZR 375/10
Validity of fixed-term employment contract without valid reason: exclusion of prior vocational training from the statutory prior employment ban
BAGE 139, 213
September 2011 - 7 AZR 375/10 -, BAGE 139, 213 ).
1 BvL 7/14
Unconstitutionality of judicially extended three-year cooling-off period for repeated factually unfounded fixed-term employment contracts
1 BvR 1375/14
Unconstitutionality of judicially extended three-year cooling-off period for repeated factually unfounded fixed-term employment contracts
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 3044/13
Fixed-term employment termination: interpretation of § 14 Abs. 2 Satz 2 TzBfG as exceeding limits of permissible judicial law-making under Art. 2(1), Art. 20(3) GG
1 BvR 544/14
Constitutional limits on judicial interpretation of fixed-term employment contract termination under § 14 TzBfG
1 BvR 3043/13
Fixed-term contract interpretation under § 14 Abs. 2 TzBfG exceeding limits of permissible judicial law development
1 BvR 3058/13
Fixed-term employment contracts: Constitutional violation through judicial reinterpretation of § 14 TzBfG exceeding limits of permissible statutory interpretation
1 BvR 1097/14
Constitutional limits on judicial law-making: unconstitutional interpretation of fixed-term employment contract requirements under § 14(2) TzBfG violating the right to a lawful judge

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
Artikel 2 Absatz 1 in Verbindung mit Artikel 20 Absatz 3 des Grundgesetzes

The fundamental rights provisions that formed the main ground for granting the constitutional complaint and reversing the lower court's judgment.

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

Stattgebender Kammerbeschluss: Parallelentscheidung

[TENOR]

1. Das Urteil des Landesarbeitsgerichts Nürnberg vom 8. Mai 2013 - 2 Sa 528/12 - und das Endurteil des Arbeitsgerichts Bamberg vom 19. Juli 2012 - 1 Ca 1028/11- verletzen den Beschwerdeführer in seinem Grundrecht aus Artikel 2 Absatz 1 in Verbindung mit Artikel 20 Absatz 3des Grundgesetzes.

2. Das Urteil des Landesarbeitsgerichts Nürnberg vom 8. Mai 2013 - 2 Sa 528/12 - wird aufgehoben. Die Sache wird an das Landesarbeitsgericht Nürnberg zurückverwiesen. Damit wird der Beschluss des Bundesarbeitsgerichts vom 11. September 2013 - 7 AZN 656/13 - gegenstandslos.

3. Der Freistaat Bayern hat dem Beschwerdeführer seine notwendigen Auslagen zu erstatten.

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird zur Entscheidung angenommen (§ 93c Abs. 1, § 93a Abs. 2 b BVerfGG). Sie hat Erfolg, weil die angegriffenen Entscheidungen den Beschwerdeführer in seinem Grundrecht aus Art. 2 Abs. 1 in Verbindung mit Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG verletzen. Die angegriffenen Entscheidungen beruhen auf der Rechtsprechung des Bundesarbeitsgerichts zur Auslegung von § 14 Abs. 2 Satz 2 TzBfG (vgl. dazu BAG, Urteil vom 6. April 2011 - 7 AZR 716/09 -, BAGE 137, 275 ; Urteil vom 21. September 2011 - 7 AZR 375/10 -, BAGE 139, 213 ). Nach dem Beschluss des Ersten Senats des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom 6. Juni 2018 - 1 BvL 7/14, 1 BvR 1375/14 - überschreitet diese Rechtsprechung die Grenzen vertretbarer Auslegung und zulässiger richterlicher Rechtsfortbildung.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.