Is the minimum wage constitutional

Federal Constitutional Court

1. The principle of subsidiarity requires that, before a constitutional complaint is lodged, all available procedural options are used to correct the alleged violation of the constitution or to prevent a violation of fundamental rights (see BVerfGE 123, 148 <172>; 134, 242 <285 para. 150>; established case-law). Therefore, a constitutional complaint is inadmissible if legal protection can be obtained in a reasonable manner by referring to the specialized courts. This is even to be demanded if the law leaves no room for interpretation, discretion or assessment that would allow the specialized courts to avoid the asserted violation of fundamental rights by virtue of their own decision-making authority (see BVerfGE 123, 148 <173>). Although the professional judicial review for the complainant can at best lead to the fact that the legal regulation that is disadvantageous to them under Article 100.1 of the Basic Law is submitted to the Federal Constitutional Court, it is regularly necessary in order to avoid the Federal Constitutional Court being placed on an uncertain factual and legal basis makes far-reaching decisions (see BVerfGE 123, 148 <173> mwN; BVerfG, decision of the First Senate of January 14, 2015 - 1 BvR 931/12 -, www.bverfg.de, Rn. 23). Exceptionally, the obligation to appeal to the specialized courts does not exist if the challenged regulation forces the complainant to make arrangements that can no longer be corrected later (see BVerfGE 43, 291 <387>; 60, 360 <372>), or if the referral to the specialized courts is unreasonable, for example because that would be obviously pointless and futile (cf.BVerfGE 55, 154 <157>; 65, 1 <38>; 102, 197 <208>), or if a matter is specifically constitutional Raises questions that the Federal Constitutional Court ultimately has to answer without expecting an improved basis for decision-making from a previous specialist judicial review (cf. BVerfGE 123, 148 <172 f.>). In addition, it is unreasonable to violate a legal norm that is subject to fines or fines before filing a constitutional complaint and to expose yourself to the risk of punishment in order to then be able to assert the unconstitutionality of the norm in criminal or administrative fine proceedings (cf. BVerfGE 81, 70 <82 f.>; 97, 157 <165>; BVerfG, decision of the First Senate of January 14, 2015 - 1 BvR 931/12 -, www.bverfg.de, Rn. 23).