Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
2 BvR 726/25 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2025:rk20250522.2bvr072625 AI generated

Insufficiently substantiated constitutional complaint and unfounded recusal motion rejected

Case Number 2 BvR 726/25
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany dismissed the constitutional complaint as inadmissible and rejected the application for recusal of specific judges as obviously inadmissible, thereby upholding the lower court’s decision and rendering the related application for interim relief moot. The case involved a constitutional complaint filed against a judgment that the petitioner had not sufficiently substantiated in accordance with constitutional requirements, accompanied by a blanket motion to recuse judges without providing specific grounds for bias. The Court applied §§ 23(1) sentence 2 and 92 of the Rules of Procedure of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGG), which mandate specific legal reasoning to justify a constitutional complaint, and determined that the recusal motion was defective because it contained only general assertions against the panel and improperly targeted judges not participating in the case, leading to the conclusion that the complaint did not meet the threshold for review.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 92 BVerfGG, § 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG; Insufficiently substantiated constitutional complaint and unfounded recusal motion rejected: The case involved a constitutional complaint filed against a judgment that the petitioner had not sufficiently substantiated in accordance with constitutional requirements, accompanied by a blanket motion to recuse judges without providing specific grounds for bias. The Court applied §§ 23(1) sentence 2 and 92 of the Rules of Procedure of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGG), which mandate specific legal reasoning to justify a constitutional complaint, and determined that the recusal motion was defective because it contained only general assertions against the panel and improperly targeted judges not participating in the case, leading to the conclusion that the complaint did not meet the threshold for review.

Keywords

AI generated
motion for recusal inadequate constitutional complaint substantiated bias unproven judicial bias rules of procedure right of rescission

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 92 BVerfGG
1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG ergebenden Begründungsanforderungen offensichtlich nicht gerecht.
§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG
Cited in the dispositive to rule that the application for interim relief became moot upon the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
BVerfGE 142, 1
AI generated
2 BvR 1622/22
Unsubstantiated recusal motion and insufficiently reasoned constitutional complaint
2 BvR 1321/20
Unsubstantiated constitutional complaint and insufficient recusal request based on prior judicial involvement
2 BvR 341/20
Insufficiently reasoned constitutional complaint and recusal request against unassigned judges
2 BvR 1624/22
Recusal motion and constitutional complaint rejected for lack of admissible bias grounds and insufficient legal argumentation
2 BvR 1352/20
Unsubstantiated Constitutional Complaint Rejected for Failure to Demonstrate Fundamental Rights Violation; Recusal of Unassigned Judges Dismissed as Inadmissible

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG

Cited in the dispositive to rule that the application for interim relief became moot upon the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.

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 offensichtlich unzureichend begründeten Verfassungsbeschwerde - Verwerfung eines offensichtlich unzulässigen Ablehnungsgesuchs

[TENOR]

Das Ablehnungsgesuch gegen die Mitglieder der 2. Kammer sowie der 3. Kammer des Zweiten Senats des Bundesverfassungsgerichts wird als unzulässig verworfen.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

Mit der Nichtannahme der Verfassungsbeschwerde wird der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung gegenstandslos (§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG).

[GRUENDE]

1. Das Ablehnungsgesuch ist offensichtlich unzulässig, weil es lediglich Ausführungen enthält, die sich pauschal gegen den gesamten Spruchkörper richten und gänzlich ungeeignet sind, die Besorgnis der Befangenheit dessen Mitglieder zu begründen. Zudem sind die Mitglieder der 3. Kammer des Zweiten Senats nicht zur Mitwirkung in diesem Verfahren berufen. Daher bedarf es auch keiner dienstlichen Stellungnahme der abgelehnten Richterinnen und Richter, sind diese von der Entscheidung über das Ablehnungsgesuch nicht ausgeschlossen und kann dessen Verwerfung als unzulässig zusammen mit der Sachentscheidung über die Verfassungsbeschwerde erfolgen (vgl. BVerfGE 142, 1 ).

2. Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen, da sie unzulässig ist. Sie wird den sich aus § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG ergebenden Begründungsanforderungen offensichtlich nicht gerecht.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.