Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
1 BvR 2279/22 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2023:rk20230117.1bvr227922 AI generated

Constitutional complaint refused for insufficient substantiation of fundamental rights and chamber composition claims

Case Number 1 BvR 2279/22
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Constitutional Court issued a non-acceptance decision, refusing to take up the constitutional complaint for decision and confirming the chamber's lawful composition. The dispute involved a petitioner who challenged a lower court decision with insufficiently substantiated fundamental rights complaints and a separate allegation regarding the improper composition of the judicial chamber. The Court held that it is not required to review chamber composition ex officio for the right to a lawfully constituted court under Article 101(1) sentence 2 of the Basic Law unless specific reasons for doubt are presented, and found no such reasons in the record; consequently, the complaint was deemed inadmissible for lack of sufficient substantiation.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Constitutional complaint refused for insufficient substantiation of fundamental rights and chamber composition claims: The dispute involved a petitioner who challenged a lower court decision with insufficiently substantiated fundamental rights complaints and a separate allegation regarding the improper composition of the judicial chamber. The Court held that it is not required to review chamber composition ex officio for the right to a lawfully constituted court under Article 101(1) sentence 2 of the Basic Law unless specific reasons for doubt are presented, and found no such reasons in the record; consequently, the complaint was deemed inadmissible for lack of sufficient substantiation.

Keywords

AI generated
constitutional grievances fundamental rights judicial review procedural issues matter in dispute right to be heard

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a detailed reasoning for the non-acceptance decision.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
BVerfGE 131, 230
BVerfGE 131, 230 m.w.N.; BVerfG, Beschluss des Zweiten Senats vom 6.
2 BvR 3/21
Constitutional complaint rejecting chamber composition challenge under Art. 101(1) GG due to lack of serious doubt regarding assigned judges
2 BvR 966/21
Constitutional complaint rejecting constitutional chamber composition challenge under Article 101(1) sentence 2 GG
AI generated
1 BvR 963/16
Constitutional complaint rejected for failure to substantiate fundamental rights violation
2 BvR 2082/11
Non-acceptance of constitutional complaint for lack of substantive reasoning in chamber decision
2 BvR 1098/11
Constitutional complaint over refusal of a substantive decision by a chamber of the Federal Constitutional Court
2 BvR 1607/13
Constitutional complaint over unreasoned non-acceptance; scope of mandatory reasoning duties for Chamber decisions
2 BvR 1089/18
Constitutional complaint not accepted for decision without reasoning

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a detailed reasoning for the non-acceptance decision.

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

Nichtannahme einer mangels hinreichender Substantiierung unzulässigen Verfassungsbeschwerde - ordnungsgemäße Kammerbesetzung

[TENOR]

Die 2. Kammer des Ersten Senats des Bundesverfassungsgerichts ist ordnungsgemäß besetzt.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Die beschwerdeführende Person hat neben nicht hinreichend substantiierten Grundrechtsrügen auch eine Besetzungsrüge erhoben. Die Kammer hat die ordnungsgemäße Besetzung zur Wahrung des Anspruchs aus Art. 101 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG von Amts wegen jedoch nur zu prüfen, soweit hierzu Anlass besteht (vgl. BVerfGE 131, 230 m.w.N.; BVerfG, Beschluss des Zweiten Senats vom 6. Oktober 2020 - 2 BvC 32/19 -, Rn. 3). Das ist hier nicht der Fall. Es sind nicht ansatzweise Gründe dafür vorgetragen, um an einer ordnungsgemäßen Kammerbesetzung zu zweifeln (vgl. BVerfG, Beschlüsse der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 12. März 2021 - 2 BvR 3/21 -, Rn. 3, und vom 14. September 2021 - 2 BvR 966/21 -, Rn. 3).

Von einer Begründung wird nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.