BVerfG 1 BvR 2821/11, 1 BvR 321/12, 1 BvR 1456/12•Correction of an obvious error in the reasons
BVerfG 1 BvR 2821/11, 1 BvR 321/12, 1 BvR 1456/12Bverfg / Division 1Dec 20, 2016Modified
Extracted by Omnilex
The Federal Constitutional Court corrected an obvious error in the reasons of its judgment of 6 December 2016. In the first sentence of margin number 377, the date '8 December 2010' was replaced by '28 October 2010'. The decision concerns only this textual correction and does not alter the substantive outcome of the earlier judgment.
§ 319 ZPO; correction of an obvious inaccuracy in the reasons of a judgment. Obvious writing, calculation or similar clerical errors may be corrected ex officio or on application when the mistake is evident from the decision itself and the correction does not entail any substantive reconsideration. The correction relates solely to the external expression of the court’s intention and may replace an incorrect date by the correct one where the context makes the error manifest.
Entscheidungsdatum: 2016-12-20
Aktenzeichen: 1 BvR 2821/11, 1 BvR 321/12, 1 BvR 1456/12
ECLI: ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2016:rs20161220.1bvr282111
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 90 BVerfGG, § 319 ZPO
Vorinstanz: vorgehend BVerfG, 6. Dezember 2016, Az: 1 BvR 2821/11, Urteilnachgehend BVerfG, 29. September 2020, Az: 1 BvR 1456/12, Beschluss
Spruchkörper: 1. Senat
Berichtigung in den Gründen des Urteils vom 06.12.2016
Die offenbare Unrichtigkeit im ersten Satz der Randnummer 377 des Urteils des Ersten Senats vom 6. Dezember 2016 wird dahin berichtigt, dass dort das Datum "8. Dezember 2010" durch das Datum "28. Oktober 2010" ersetzt wird.
Extracted by Omnilex
Correction of the incorrect date in margin number 377 of the judgment reasons
The date '8 December 2010' is replaced by '28 October 2010' in the first sentence of margin number 377.
The court found an obvious inaccuracy in its prior judgment that could be corrected under the applicable procedural rules.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.