Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
1 BvR 261/14 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2018:rk20180704.1bvr026114 Generato dall'IA

Fixed-term employment contracts: unconstitutionality of Federal Labor Court interpretation of § 14(2) TzBfG as exceeding limits of judicial law development

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 261/14
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Accolto (Allowed)
Spese processuali senza spese

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Constitutional Court accepted the constitutional complaint and quashed the judgment of the Upper Labor Court of Nuremberg, remanding the case to that court while rendering a prior Federal Labor Court order moot; the complainant prevailed, and the state of Bavaria was ordered to reimburse necessary litigation costs. The dispute involved a challenge to final labor court decisions that relied on the Federal Labor Court’s interpretation of § 14(2) sentence 2 of the Part-Time and Fixed-Term Employment Act (TzBfG), specifically regarding fixed-term employment contracts. The Court held that this lower-courts' application of the BAG’s precedent violated the complainant’s fundamental rights under Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 20(3) of the Basic Law, as the established case law exceeded the limits of acceptable statutory interpretation and permissible judicial law development, a view confirmed by a concurrent decision of the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG; Fixed-term employment contracts: unconstitutionality of Federal Labor Court interpretation of § 14(2) TzBfG as exceeding limits of judicial law development: The dispute involved a challenge to final labor court decisions that relied on the Federal Labor Court’s interpretation of § 14(2) sentence 2 of the Part-Time and Fixed-Term Employment Act (TzBfG), specifically regarding fixed-term employment contracts. The Court held that this lower-courts' application of the BAG’s precedent violated the complainant’s fundamental rights under Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 20(3) of the Basic Law, as the established case law exceeded the limits of acceptable statutory interpretation and permissible judicial law development, a view confirmed by a concurrent decision of the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
contratto di lavoro determinato annullamento del contratto diritto processuale limiti costituzionali interpretazione della sentenza diritto legale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
Generato dall'IA

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

The fundamental right violated by the challenged decisions, serving as the main ground for quashing the judgment and remanding the case.

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 9. Juli 2013 - 7 Sa 10/13 - und das Endurteil des Arbeitsgerichts Bamberg 10. Oktober 2012 - 2 Ca 1169/11 - 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 9. Juli 2013 - 7 Sa 10/13 - wird aufgehoben. Die Sache wird an das Landesarbeitsgericht Nürnberg zurückverwiesen. Damit wird der Beschluss des Bundesarbeitsgerichts vom 4. Dezember 2013 - 7 AZN 886/13 - 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.