Constitutional protection against excessive judicial reinterpretation of fixed-term employment contract limits under Article 14(2) TzBfG
Germania (DE)
Sintesi Legislator
Generato dall'IAThe Federal Constitutional Court (First Senate, Second Chamber) granted the constitutional complaint, declaring that the judgments of the Regional Labor Court and the Labor Court violated the complainant's fundamental rights, ordered the reversal of the Regional Labor Court's decision and remanded the case for retrial, and awarded the complainant legal costs. The dispute concerned the interpretation of fixed-term employment contracts under German law, specifically challenging lower court decisions that had applied the Federal Labor Court's jurisprudence on the validity of consecutive temporary contracts. The decisive legal basis was Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 20(3) of the German Basic Law, under which the Court held that the Federal Labor Court's interpretation of § 14(2) Sentence 2 of the Part-Time and Fixed-Term Employment Act exceeded the bounds of permissible statutory interpretation and judicial law-making, as established in a concurrent constitutional review.
Regesto Legislator
Generato dall'IAArt. 20 Abs. 3 GG; Constitutional protection against excessive judicial reinterpretation of fixed-term employment contract limits under Article 14(2) TzBfG: The dispute concerned the interpretation of fixed-term employment contracts under German law, specifically challenging lower court decisions that had applied the Federal Labor Court's jurisprudence on the validity of consecutive temporary contracts. The decisive legal basis was Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 20(3) of the German Basic Law, under which the Court held that the Federal Labor Court's interpretation of § 14(2) Sentence 2 of the Part-Time and Fixed-Term Employment Act exceeded the bounds of permissible statutory interpretation and judicial law-making, as established in a concurrent constitutional review.
Parole chiave
Generato dall'IADisposizioni normative citate
Generato dall'IAGiurisprudenza citata
Generato dall'IADecisioni correlate
Generato dall'IAQuestioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator
Generato dall'IAThe main ground for the verdict, as the court found that the challenged decisions violated this fundamental right by relying on an unlawful interpretation of labor contract law.
Testo completo
Stattgebender Kammerbeschluss: Parallelentscheidung
[TENOR]
1. Das Urteil des Landesarbeitsgerichts Nürnberg vom 30. Januar 2014 - 5 Sa 8/13 - und das Endurteil des Arbeitsgerichts Bamberg vom 10. Oktober 2012 - 2 Ca 1165/11 - 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 30. Januar 2014 - 5 Sa 8/13 - wird aufgehoben. Die Sache wird an das Landesarbeitsgericht Nürnberg zurückverwiesen. Damit wird der Beschluss des Bundesarbeitsgerichts vom 30. April 2014 - 7 AZN 120/14 - 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.