Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
1 BvR 593/17 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2020:rk20200110.1bvr059317 AI generated

Unlawfulness of general binding force declaration for construction industry social fund collective agreement under freedom of association and assembly.

Case Number 1 BvR 593/17
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Constitutional Court declined to accept the constitutional complaint for decision, thereby leaving the lower court's judgment in force and ruling against the complainants. The dispute concerned a challenge to a Federal Labor Court decision that declared the 2014 general declaration of binding force for the collective agreement on the social fund procedure in the construction industry ineffective. The complainants alleged violations of freedom of association and assembly, but the Court found the objections unfounded, citing its prior reasoning in a parallel case, and dismissed the appeal as inadmissible.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 9 Abs. 3 GG, Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Unlawfulness of general binding force declaration for construction industry social fund collective agreement under freedom of association and assembly: The dispute concerned a challenge to a Federal Labor Court decision that declared the 2014 general declaration of binding force for the collective agreement on the social fund procedure in the construction industry ineffective. The complainants alleged violations of freedom of association and assembly, but the Court found the objections unfounded, citing its prior reasoning in a parallel case, and dismissed the appeal as inadmissible.

Keywords

AI generated
freedom of assembly and association collective agreement declaration of validity association Agreement trade union rights collective offence

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 9 Abs. 3 GG
Die gerichtliche Entscheidung verstoße gegen Art. 9 Abs. 3 GG, jedenfalls aber gegen Art.
Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural provision cited in the operative text to justify the omission of a further detailed legal reasoning.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
1 BvR 4/17
Constitutional right to freedom of association does not confer a claim to declaration of a collective agreement as generally binding
AI generated
1 BvR 1104/17
Constitutional complaint against invalidity of general declaratory extension of collective agreement on social fund in construction industry; violation of freedom of association and general personal rights.
1 BvR 1459/17
Invalidity of statutory extension of construction sector social fund collective agreement and alleged violation of collective bargaining freedom
10 ABR 12/18
Validity of general binding declaration for construction industry social fund collective agreement under § 5 Abs. 1a TVG
10 AZR 399/18
Constitutionality of statutory extension of collective bargaining agreements to secure construction industry social funds despite prior annulment of general binding force declaration
1 BvR 4/17
Constitutional right to freedom of association does not confer a claim to declaration of a collective agreement as generally binding

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Procedural provision cited in the operative text to justify the omission of a further detailed legal reasoning.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Nichtannahmebeschluss: Parallelentscheidung

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

I. Die Beschwerdeführenden wenden sich dagegen, dass das Bundesarbeitsgericht mit der angegriffenen Entscheidung die im Jahr 2014 erfolgte Allgemeinverbindlicherklärung des Tarifvertrags über das Sozialkassenverfahren im Baugewerbe (VTV) für unwirksam erklärt hat. Die gerichtliche Entscheidung verstoße gegen Art. 9 Abs. 3 GG, jedenfalls aber gegen Art. 9 Abs. 1 und Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG.

II. Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist nicht zur Entscheidung anzunehmen, weil die mit ihr vorgebrachten Rügen unbegründet sind. Hinsichtlich der Einzelheiten wird auf die Ausführungen der Kammer im Verfahren 1 BvR 4/17 verwiesen, die auch im vorliegenden Fall einem Erfolg der Verfassungsbeschwerde entgegenstehen.

III. Von einer weiteren Begründung wird nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.