You are here:
The following abstract was prepared by the Federal Constitutional Court and submitted for publication to the CODICES database maintained by the Venice Commission. Abstracts published by the Venice Commission summarise the facts of the case and key legal considerations of the decision. For further information, please consult the CODICES database. | |
---|---|
Please cite the abstract as follows: | |
Abstract of the Federal Constitutional Court’s Order of 28 September 2017, 1 BvR 1510/17 [CODICES] | |
First Chamber of the First Senate Order of 28 September 2017 | |
Headnotes (non-official):
1. As a subjective right, the right to one’s lawful judge according to the second sentence of Article 101.1 of the Basic Law entitles persons seeking justice to a decision on their legal dispute by their lawful judge. However, not each case of overstepping the limits set for the regular courts constitutes a violation of the second sentence of Article 101.1 of the Basic Law. 2. The second sentence of § 155.2 of the Act on Social Courts (Sozialgerichtsgesetz); hereinafter: the Act) is an exception provision that must, due to the right to the lawful judge according to the second sentence of Article 101.1 of the Basic Law, be applied diligently, moderately and with respect to the case at hand. 3. When the court decided on the appeal concerning the grant for professional training, by applying the second sentence of § 155.2 of the Act accordingly, it violated the right to the lawful judge according to the second sentence of Article 101.1 of the Basic Law because urgent circumstances within the meaning of the second sentence of § 155.2 of the Act were neither evident nor have they been established. | |
Summary: I. The applicant filed an application at the Federal Employment Agency (Bundesagentur für Arbeit, hereinafter: the Agency) in order to receive a grant for his professional training. As the Agency did not consider the applicant eligible for the grant the application was rejected as was the protest lodged against the rejection. The applicant took legal action against the Agency’s decisions and applied for preliminary relief. The Social Court (Sozialgericht) ordered the Agency to pay the grant for the professional training until the matter was decided in the main proceedings. The Higher Social Court (Landessozialgericht) reversed the order of the Social Court and denied the application for preliminary relief. The decision was made by the presiding judge of the senate “applying the second sentence of § 155.2 of the Act accordingly” which allows for a decision by the presiding judge alone in expedited proceedings due to urgent circumstances. Reasons for applying the provision accordingly were not given. Rather, it was addressed why the applicant was not eligible to receive a grant for professional training. The applicant challenged the order of the Higher Social Court and claimed violations of the right to his lawful judge according to the second sentence of Article 101.1 of the Basic Law, his right to effective legal protection according to Article 19.4 of the Basic Law as well as the general guarantee of the right to equality according to Article 3.1 of the Basic Law.
The decision was based on the following considerations: |