The AI workspace for legal professionals

  • Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
  • Document automation
  • Matter management
  • Hosted in the EU and Switzerland

Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)

Try for freeBook a demo

Constitutional referral became moot after prior BVerfG ruling

BVerfG 1 BvL 19/12Bverfg / Division 1Feb 24, 2014Dismissed

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The First Senate held that the referral from the Federal Court of Justice concerning the constitutionality of § 1600(1) no. 5 BGB had become moot. Because the Court had already decided the same constitutional question in its judgment of 2013-12-17 (1 BvL 6/10), the issue submitted by the referring court was considered answered and no longer required a separate ruling.

Omnilex headnote

Preliminary ruling referral; mootness of a constitutional submission after an earlier decision of the Federal Constitutional Court. Where the same statutory provision and constitutional question have already been decided by the Court, a parallel referral concerning that provision becomes obsolete; the referred question is then no longer capable of independent adjudication (consid. 1).

Full text

BVerfG — 1 BvL 19/12, Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2014-02-24

Aktenzeichen: 1 BvL 19/12

ECLI: ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2014:ls20140224.1bvl001912

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Vorinstanz: vorgehend BGH, 27. Juni 2012, Az: XII ZR 90/10, Vorlagebeschluss

Spruchkörper: 1. Senat

Titelzeile

Parallelentscheidung: Gegenstandslosigkeit einer Richtervorlage

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 referralmootnesspaternity challengeparallel decisionvoid statute

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the constitutional referral was still admissible after the BVerfG's earlier decision of 2013-12-17 in 1 BvL 6/10.

Extracted holding

The referral had become moot because the referred question had already been decided in the earlier case.

Extracted reasoning

The earlier BVerfG ruling declared § 1600(1) no. 5 BGB and Art. 229 § 16 EGBGB unconstitutional and void. Since the referring court’s submission showed that the same provision was also at issue here, the question was already answered.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

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