Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
1 BvR 2761/11 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2012:rk20120112.1bvr276111 Generato dall'IA

Compatibility of statutory voidance of testamentary dispositions to a divorced spouse with the constitutional right to marriage and family

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 2761/11
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Inammissibile (Inadmissible)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional complaint without further reasoning, leaving the lower court’s decision in force and ruling against the complainant. The dispute concerned a challenge to the application of § 2077 Abs. 1 S. 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB), which renders a testamentary disposition in favor of a spouse void upon divorce if certain conditions are met. The complainant argued that this provision violated Article 6 Abs. 1 of the German Basic Law (right to marriage and family). The Court held that the complaint lacked acceptance requirements for lack of fundamental constitutional significance and noted that the statutory provision did not infringe Article 6 Abs. 1 GG, whether viewed as an institutional guarantee or a fundamental right, because the loss of the benefit is conditioned on the actual existence of divorce prerequisites and both parties' declaration of the marriage's failure.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art 6 Abs 1 GG, § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 2077 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BGB, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Compatibility of statutory voidance of testamentary dispositions to a divorced spouse with the constitutional right to marriage and family: The dispute concerned a challenge to the application of § 2077 Abs. 1 S. 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB), which renders a testamentary disposition in favor of a spouse void upon divorce if certain conditions are met. The complainant argued that this provision violated Article 6 Abs. 1 of the German Basic Law (right to marriage and family). The Court held that the complaint lacked acceptance requirements for lack of fundamental constitutional significance and noted that the statutory provision did not infringe Article 6 Abs. 1 GG, whether viewed as an institutional guarantee or a fundamental right, because the loss of the benefit is conditioned on the actual existence of divorce prerequisites and both parties' declaration of the marriage's failure.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
requisito costituzionale diritto legale scioglimento del matrimonio causa civile diritti fondamentali statuto in diritto internazionale privato

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Generato dall'IA

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

Nichtannahmebeschluss: Voraussetzung des § 2077 Abs 1 S 1 BGB für Unwirksamkeit letztwilliger Verfügungen zugunsten Ehegatten mit Art 6 Abs 1 GG vereinbar

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist nicht zur Entscheidung anzunehmen, da die Voraussetzungen des § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG nicht vorliegen.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde hat keine grundsätzliche verfassungsrechtliche Bedeutung. Ihre Annahme ist auch nicht zur Durchsetzung

der von der Beschwerdeführerin als verletzt gerügten Rechte angezeigt.

Art. 6 Abs. 1 GG wird weder in seiner Bedeutung als Institutsgarantie noch als Freiheitsrecht beeinträchtigt, weil die vorzeitige

Unwirksamkeit einer Verfügung von Todes wegen zugunsten des Ehegatten in § 2077 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BGB voraussetzt, dass die Scheidungsvoraussetzungen

vorliegen und beide Ehegatten zu erkennen gegeben haben, dass sie ihre Ehe als gescheitert ansehen und deshalb nicht mehr

an ihr festhalten wollen.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.