projects

Referral moot after parallel constitutional ruling

BVerfG 1 BvL 18/12Bverfg / Division 1Feb 24, 2014Dismissed

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The Federal Constitutional Court held that a referral from the Federal Court of Justice concerning the constitutionality of § 1600(1) no. 5 BGB had become moot. A parallel decision of 17 December 2013 in case 1 BvL 6/10 had already found the provision, together with the transitional provision, incompatible with the Basic Law and void. Because the same question was thus already answered, the present referral no longer required a constitutional review.

Omnilex headnote

Art. 100 Abs. 1 GG; a constitutional referral becomes moot if the Federal Constitutional Court has already decided the same constitutional question in a parallel proceeding. Where the referring order shows that the provision under review is identical in substance to that previously invalidated, the Court no longer decides the merits but notes the lack of need for review, as the question has been conclusively answered (consid. 1).

Full text

BVerfG — 1 BvL 18/12, Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2014-02-24

Aktenzeichen: 1 BvL 18/12

ECLI: ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2014:ls20140224.1bvl001812

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Normen: Art 100 Abs 1 GG, § 1600 Abs 1 Nr 5 BGB vom 13.03.2008

Vorinstanz: vorgehend BGH, 27. Juni 2012, Az: XII ZR 89/10, Vorlagebeschluss

Spruchkörper: 1. Senat

Titelzeile

Gegenstandslosigkeit einer Richtervorlage nach Entscheidung des BVerfG in Parallelverfahren

Tenor

Die Vorlage ist durch die Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom 17. Dezember 2013 - 1 BvL 6/10 - gegenstandslos geworden.

Gründe

1 Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat mit Beschluss vom 17. Dezember 2013 im Verfahren 1 BvL 6/10 festgestellt, dass § 1600 Abs. 1 Nr. 5 BGB und Art. 229 § 16 EGBGB, beide in der Fassung des Gesetzes zur Ergänzung des Rechts zur Anfechtung der Vaterschaft vom 13. März 2008 (BGBI I S. 313), gegen Art. 16 Abs. 1, gegen Art. 6 Abs. 2 Satz 1, gegen Art. 2 Abs. 1 in Verbindung mit Art. 6 Abs. 2 Satz 1 und gegen Art. 6 Abs. 1 GG verstoßen und nichtig sind. Aus dem Beschluss des vorlegenden Gerichts ergibt sich, dass § 1600 Abs. 1 Nr. 5 BGB auch im vorliegenden Verfahren zur Prüfung gestellt ist. Die Vorlage ist damit gegenstandslos geworden, da die vorgelegte Frage durch die genannte Entscheidung beantwortet ist.

Keywords

constitutional referralmootnessparallel proceedingsvaternity challengeinadmissibility

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the constitutional referral concerning § 1600(1) no. 5 BGB remained admissible after the Federal Constitutional Court's parallel decision of 2013-12-17.

Extracted holding

The referral had become moot because the constitutional question had already been decided in the parallel case and the reference was therefore no longer needed.

Extracted reasoning

The Court noted that its decision in 1 BvL 6/10 had declared the challenged provisions unconstitutional and void. Since the referring order showed that the same provision was also at issue here, the present question had already been answered.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.