Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 938/14 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2018:rk20180704.1bvr093814 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional limits on judicial law development in interpreting fixed-term contract extensions under § 14 TzBfG

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 938/14
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, ruled that the appealed labor court judgments violated the complainant's fundamental rights under Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 20(3) of the Basic Law, quashed the Regional Labor Court of Nuremberg's decision, remanded the case to that court, and ordered the State of Bavaria to reimburse the complainant's necessary legal expenses. The dispute concerned a challenge to prior instances’ interpretation of § 14(2) sentence 2 of the Part-Time and Fixed-Term Work Act (TzBfG), which resulted in judgments that the constitutional court found to infringe on the complainant's rights. The decisive legal basis was the court's determination, referencing a prior First Senate decision, that the Federal Labor Court’s established case law on the interpretation of § 14(2) sentence 2 TzBfG exceeded the limits of permissible statutory interpretation and judicial law development.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG; Constitutional limits on judicial law development in interpreting fixed-term contract extensions under § 14 TzBfG: The dispute concerned a challenge to prior instances’ interpretation of § 14(2) sentence 2 of the Part-Time and Fixed-Term Work Act (TzBfG), which resulted in judgments that the constitutional court found to infringe on the complainant's rights. The decisive legal basis was the court's determination, referencing a prior First Senate decision, that the Federal Labor Court’s established case law on the interpretation of § 14(2) sentence 2 TzBfG exceeded the limits of permissible statutory interpretation and judicial law development.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
limiti costituzionali diritto processuale interpretazione del contratto proroga del termine contratto di durata determinata diritto legale

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 3043/13
Fixed-term contract interpretation under § 14 Abs. 2 TzBfG exceeding limits of permissible judicial law development
1 BvR 544/14
Constitutional limits on judicial interpretation of fixed-term employment contract termination under § 14 TzBfG
1 BvR 3436/13
Fixed-Term Employment Contract Validity Under § 14(2) TzBfG: Judicial Law-Making Exceeding Interpretive Limits
1 BvR 3041/13
Judicial reinterpretation of TzBfG fixed-term limits exceeds constitutional bounds of judicial law-making
1 BvR 1028/14
Limits of Judicial Law-Making on Fixed-Term Contract Restrictions Under Part-Time and Fixed-Term Employment Act

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

The main ground for the verdict, as the court explicitly states that the appealed decisions violated the complainant in this fundamental right.

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 19. September 2013 - 5 Sa 530/12 - und das Endurteil des Arbeitsgerichts Bamberg vom 19. Juli 2012 - 1 Ca 1210/11 - 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 19. September 2013 - 5 Sa 530/12 - wird aufgehoben. Die Sache wird an das Landesarbeitsgericht Nürnberg zurückverwiesen. Damit wird der Beschluss des Bundesarbeitsgerichts vom 19. März 2014 - 7 AZN 1318/13 - 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.