Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 1900/17 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2018:rk20180509.1bvr190017 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional validity of the proximity procedure in supplementary pension benefit calculations and effective judicial protection

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 1900/17
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Inammissibile (Inadmissible)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Constitutional Court declined to hear the constitutional complaint, leaving the lower court's application of the "proximity procedure" for calculating pension benefits in force, and waived the need to rule on the accompanying request for reinstatement of the deadline. The applicant challenged the pension authority's use of this specific calculation method for supplementary retirement benefits, alleging a violation of the right to effective legal protection. The Court found no indication of a violation of Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 20(3) of the Basic Law and relied on the reasoning of a parallel decision issued the same day, which established that the procedural norms governing similar supplementary pension schemes were constitutionally permissible.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Constitutional validity of the proximity procedure in supplementary pension benefit calculations and effective judicial protection: The applicant challenged the pension authority's use of this specific calculation method for supplementary retirement benefits, alleging a violation of the right to effective legal protection. The Court found no indication of a violation of Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 20(3) of the Basic Law and relied on the reasoning of a parallel decision issued the same day, which established that the procedural norms governing similar supplementary pension schemes were constitutionally permissible.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
calcolo della rendita costituzionalità diritti procedurali pensione complementare diritto processuale tutela legale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG
Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG), die in erster Linie gerügt wird, nicht ersichtlich.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Cited in the numbered orders to justify the waiver of a detailed written reasoning for the non-acceptance decision.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 1884/17
Public service supplementary pension transitional rules: Effectiveness of judicial protection versus collective bargaining discretion and alleged gender-based discrimination in retirement calculation
Generato dall'IA
IV ZR 191/15
Constitutionality of differentiated start credit calculation for near- and far-retirement public servants in supplementary pension system
IV ZR 168/15
Constitutional validity of excluding certain insureds from transition bonuses in public service supplementary pension
1 BvR 1883/17
Constitutional complaint on effective legal protection regarding supplementary pension scheme administration
IV ZR 49/22
Constitutional validity of transition rules for public sector supplementary pension start credits under equal treatment and anti-discrimination law
1 BvR 78/08
Constitutional admissibility of supplementary pension calculation disputes: substantiation requirements for challenging actuarial factors and vested benefits under VBL statutes

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Cited in the numbered orders to justify the waiver of a detailed written reasoning for the non-acceptance decision.

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: Parallelentscheidung

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird, ohne dass über den Antrag auf Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand entschieden zu werden braucht, nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Ungeachtet dessen, dass nicht erkennbar ist, inwiefern der Beschwerdeführer durch die Anwendung des Näherungsverfahrens bei der Berechnung seiner Rentenansprüche benachteiligt wäre, ist eine Verletzung des Anspruchs auf effektiven Rechtsschutz durch staatliche Gerichte (Art. 2 Abs. 1 i.V.m. Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG), die in erster Linie gerügt wird, nicht ersichtlich.

Zur weiteren Begründung wird auf den Beschluss im Verfahren 1 BvR 1884/17 vom heutigen Tag verwiesen, dessen wesentliche Erwägungen auch im System der Zusatzrenten nach den insoweit inhaltsgleichen Vorgaben der hier beklagten Zusatzversorgungskasse zur Geltung kommen. Im Übrigen wird von einer Begründung nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.