Decision relevance
Decision relevance generally means that a decision is the result of a previous weighing process . In the affirmative case, the prerequisites for the decision are found to be expedient and valid . The decision - as a result of the reaction to alternatives - is understood as human behavior to commit to one of several possibilities. Conventionally recognized criteria are required for this.
In particular, the term is therefore reflected in material and procedural law as well as in business ( accounting principles according to IAS) (English: decision usefulness).
Importance in business
The relevance of the decision is a principle of international accounting law .
In order to be able to make economic decisions regarding the cooperation with companies, the reporting system of the international accounting principles, the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), is used. The purpose of this reporting system is to prepare and make available control-relevant information. Insofar as decision-relevant information on questions of the asset, earnings and financial position as well as their volatility is generated, insights into a company or an industry are possible insofar as trust in and benefits of cooperation can be reliably checked. There is no legal right to inspect internal data. On the other hand, the external accounting system provides all information that is sufficiently necessary that is relevant for the economic participants from the point of view of the relevance of the decision.
Importance in law
The legal concept of relevance to a decision can also be found in procedural law . Regulations are in Section 321a (1) No. 2, Section 544 (7) ( notice of hearing ) and Section 156 (2) No. 1 ZPO . Section 321a ZPO regulates violations of the right to be heard . In the event of a violation in a manner that is relevant to the decision , the proceedings will be continued or, if the proceedings have already ended, they will be referred back to the court of fact, Section 544 of the ZPO. Incidentally, notifiable procedural errors ( § 295 ZPO), in particular a violation of the duty to inform and provide information ( § 139 ZPO), if relevant, lead to the reopening of the hearing in accordance with § 321a ZPO.
In the specific review of norms according to Art. 100 GG , a referring court has to examine questions referred from the point of view of relevance to the decision. So whether the relevance of the decision touches questions of possible unconstitutionality .
The factual presentation in court is to be distinguished from this. Facts are relevant to the decision which, outside of prima facie evidence, also require evidence. Well-founded objections and defenses to clarify the factual presentation are relevant to the decision.
Jurisprudence
- ECJ , judgment of June 16, 2005, Az. C-105/03 - Maria Pupino, full text
- BVerfG , decision of May 9, 2006 Az. 2 BvL 5/02, full text
- BVerfG, decision of May 9, 2006, Az. 2 BvL 4/02, full text
- BVerfG, decision of October 20, 2006, Az. 2 BvR 1742/06, 2 BvR 1809/06, 2 BvR 1848/06, 2 BvR 1862/06, full text
- BGH , judgment of October 28, 2004, Az. 5 StR 276/04, full text
- BGH, decision of May 3, 2006, Az. 4 ARs 3/06, full text
- BFH , judgment of September 11, 2008, Az.VI R 13/06, VI R 63/04, VI R 81/04, full text
literature
Dieter Knöringer - The assessor exam in civil proceedings - 5th edition - Verlag CHBeck - ISBN 3-406-39387-X
Individual evidence
- ^ Decision term in Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon
- ^ Daniel Schnabl: The hearing complaint according to § 321a ZPO
- ↑ for many z. B. BVerfG , September 3, 2013, Az. 1 BvL 7/12, full text Rn. 13.
