Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 1028/14 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2018:rk20180704.1bvr102814 Generato dall'IA

Limits of Judicial Law-Making on Fixed-Term Contract Restrictions Under Part-Time and Fixed-Term Employment Act

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 1028/14
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, finding that the Lower and Higher Labor Court judgments violated the complainant's fundamental rights under Articles 2(1) and 20(3) of the Basic Law; the appellate court's judgment was quashed and the case remanded to the Higher Labor Court, while the Federal Labor Court's stay order became moot, and the Federal State of Bavaria was ordered to reimburse the complainant's necessary expenses. The dispute concerned an employment law case challenging the validity of specific labor court decisions based on the Federal Labor Court's interpretation of Section 14(2) sentence 2 of the Part-Time and Fixed-Term Employment Act (TzBfG). The decisive legal basis was the determination that the Federal Labor Court's case law on this provision exceeded the limits of permissible interpretation and judicial law development, as previously established by the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG; Limits of Judicial Law-Making on Fixed-Term Contract Restrictions Under Part-Time and Fixed-Term Employment Act: The dispute concerned an employment law case challenging the validity of specific labor court decisions based on the Federal Labor Court's interpretation of Section 14(2) sentence 2 of the Part-Time and Fixed-Term Employment Act (TzBfG). The decisive legal basis was the determination that the Federal Labor Court's case law on this provision exceeded the limits of permissible interpretation and judicial law development, as previously established by the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
diritto processuale contratto di lavoro determinato limiti costituzionali diritti costituzionali specifici interpretazione del contratto diritto acquisito

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 938/14
Constitutional limits on judicial law development in interpreting fixed-term contract extensions under § 14 TzBfG
1 BvR 3041/13
Judicial reinterpretation of TzBfG fixed-term limits exceeds constitutional bounds of judicial law-making
1 BvR 1374/14
Constitutional protection against excessive judicial reinterpretation of fixed-term employment contract limits under Article 14(2) TzBfG
1 BvR 3436/13
Fixed-Term Employment Contract Validity Under § 14(2) TzBfG: Judicial Law-Making Exceeding Interpretive Limits
1 BvR 3043/13
Fixed-term contract interpretation under § 14 Abs. 2 TzBfG exceeding limits of permissible judicial law development

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Constitutional provision cited in the dispositive as the basis for finding a violation of the complainant's fundamental rights.

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 24. Oktober 2013 - 5 Sa 746/12 - und das Endurteil des Arbeitsgerichts Bamberg vom 23. Oktober 2012 - 5 Ca 1153/11 - verletzen den Beschwerdeführer in seinem Grundrecht aus Artikel 2 Absatz 1 in Verbindung mit Artikel 20 Absatz 3 des Grundgesetzes.

2. Das Urteil des Landesarbeitsgerichts Nürnberg vom 24. Oktober 2013 - 5 Sa 746/12 - wird aufgehoben. Die Sache wird an das Landesarbeitsgericht Nürnberg zurückverwiesen. Damit wird der Beschluss des Bundesarbeitsgerichts vom 19. März 2014 - 7 AZN 1320/13 - 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.