Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 3144/13 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2018:rk20180704.1bvr314413 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional violation in interpretation of fixed-term employment contracts under § 14 TzBfG

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 3144/13
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Accolto (Allowed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The German Federal Constitutional Court granted the constitutional complaint, finding that the lower labor courts' judgments violated the complainant's right to equal treatment under Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 20(3) of the Basic Law; the court quashed the appeal court's decision, remanded the case for new proceedings, and ordered the state of Bavaria to reimburse the complainant's necessary expenses. The dispute concerned the interpretation of the German Part-Time and Fixed-Term Employment Act, specifically the permissible justifying grounds for fixed-term contracts. The decisive legal basis was the determination that the case law of the Federal Labor Court regarding the expansion of "project-related" fixed-term contracts under Section 14(2) sentence 2 of the Act exceeded the limits of permissible judicial law development, rendering the challenged decisions unconstitutional.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG; Constitutional violation in interpretation of fixed-term employment contracts under § 14 TzBfG: The dispute concerned the interpretation of the German Part-Time and Fixed-Term Employment Act, specifically the permissible justifying grounds for fixed-term contracts. The decisive legal basis was the determination that the case law of the Federal Labor Court regarding the expansion of "project-related" fixed-term contracts under Section 14(2) sentence 2 of the Act exceeded the limits of permissible judicial law development, rendering the challenged decisions unconstitutional.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
contratto di lavoro determinato interpretazione del contratto limiti costituzionali accertamento giudiziale di diritti interpretazione del diritto uguaglianza di trattamento

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 3058/13
Fixed-term employment contracts: Constitutional violation through judicial reinterpretation of § 14 TzBfG exceeding limits of permissible statutory interpretation
1 BvR 3042/13
Excessive interpretation of § 14(2) TzBfG in fixed-term employment contracts violating fundamental rights
1 BvR 261/14
Fixed-term employment contracts: unconstitutionality of Federal Labor Court interpretation of § 14(2) TzBfG as exceeding limits of judicial law development
1 BvR 1374/14
Constitutional protection against excessive judicial reinterpretation of fixed-term employment contract limits under Article 14(2) TzBfG
1 BvR 937/14
Constitutional validity of labor court case law interpreting statutory renewal of fixed-term contracts

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Cited in the first order as the constitutional right violated by the challenged lower court decisions, forming the main ground for granting relief.

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 22. Mai 2013 - 4 Sa 529/12 - und das Endurteil des Arbeitsgerichts Bamberg vom 19. Juli 2012 - 1 Ca 1080/11 - 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 22. Mai 2013 - 4 Sa 529/12 - wird aufgehoben. Die Sache wird an das Landesarbeitsgericht Nürnberg zurückverwiesen. Damit wird der Beschluss des Bundesarbeitsgerichts vom 11. September 2013 - 7 AZN 659/13 - 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.