Legislator Case Law & Legislation
2 BvR 1685/14, 2 BvR 2631/14 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2019:rs20190702.2bvr168514 AI generated

No need to reopen oral hearing for European Banking Union case where prior opportunity to be heard was sufficient

Case Number 2 BvR 1685/14, 2 BvR 2631/14
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) Second Senate rejected the applicants' motion to reopen the oral hearing and concluded that no further factual clarification was warranted. This procedural decision relates to the constitutional review of the establishment of the European Banking Union, where the applicants challenged measures associated with the banking supervision framework. The Court ruled that the applicants had already been afforded sufficient opportunity to present their arguments in writing and orally during the initial proceedings. Relying on the doctrine that additional hearings are only justified if essential facts remain unresolved, the Court determined that the requested summoning of industry associations for further testimony was unnecessary, thereby upholding the procedural finality of the prior examination.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

No need to reopen oral hearing for European Banking Union case where prior opportunity to be heard was sufficient: Der Antrag der Beschwerdeführer vom 1. März 2019 auf Wiedereröffnung der mündlichen Verhandlung wird abgelehnt.

Keywords

AI generated
oral hearing reopening of proceedings banking supervision procedural review framework decision reconsideration of an earlier decision

Cited Case Law

AI generated
BVerfGE 8, 47
AI generated

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Keine Wiedereröffnung der mündlichen Verhandlung in Sachen "Europäische Bankenunion" - weitere Aufklärung des Sachverhalts nicht veranlasst

[TENOR]

Der Antrag der Beschwerdeführer vom 1. März 2019 auf Wiedereröffnung der mündlichen Verhandlung wird abgelehnt.

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerdeführer hatten im Verfahren ausreichend Gelegenheit, sich schriftlich und mündlich zu äußern. Für eine weitere Aufklärung des Sachverhalts, insbesondere durch die beantragte Anhörung des Verbandes öffentlicher Banken und des Bundesverbandes der Deutschen Volksbanken und Raiffeisenbanken, sieht der Senat keinen Anlass (vgl. BVerfGE 8, 47 ).