Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
1 BvR 1169/25 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2025:rk20250820.1bvr116925 AI generated

Constitutional complaint in tax litigation: failure to substantiate violation of informational self-determination and breach of subsidiarity

Case Number 1 BvR 1169/25
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) rejected the constitutional complaint, leaving the lower court tax proceedings unaffected. The complainant challenged a decision from the Federal Fiscal Court, alleging that their right to information self-determination under Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the German Basic Law was violated by the conduct of the oral hearing. The Court found the complaint inadmissible because it failed to satisfy the subsidiarity principle required by § 90(2) BVerfGG regarding the allegation of hindered presentation of arguments, and because the complainant did not substantiate a sufficient probability of personal harm or demonstrate why telecommunications employees had a specific interest in accessing the hearing data, as required by §§ 23(1) sentence 2 and 92 BVerfGG.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Constitutional complaint in tax litigation: failure to substantiate violation of informational self-determination and breach of subsidiarity: The complainant challenged a decision from the Federal Fiscal Court, alleging that their right to information self-determination under Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the German Basic Law was violated by the conduct of the oral hearing. The Court found the complaint inadmissible because it failed to satisfy the subsidiarity principle required by § 90(2) BVerfGG regarding the allegation of hindered presentation of arguments, and because the complainant did not substantiate a sufficient probability of personal harm or demonstrate why telecommunications employees had a specific interest in accessing the hearing data, as required by §§ 23(1) sentence 2 and 92 BVerfGG.

Keywords

AI generated
tax litigation proceedings right to informational self-determination fiscal law constitutional requirement oral hearing protection of personal data

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG
Von einer weiteren Begründung wird nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural rule applied in the dispositive to waive the full written reasoning for the decision.
AI generated
1 BvR 165/23
Tax constitutional complaint dismissed for insufficient substantiation and warning on abuse fees for manifestly hopeless filings
2 BvR 1049/25, 2 BvR 1070/25, 2 BvR 1082/25, 2 BvR 1288/25
Tax constitutional complaints rejected for insufficient substantiation of fundamental rights violation
2 BvR 914/16
Constitutional complaint over tax records injunction dismissed for failure to exhaust hearing objection remedy
1 BvR 1902/11
Admissibility of constitutional complaint challenging external tax audit procedures
1 BvR 2554/24
Failure to substantiate constitutional complaint against corporate misuse fee warning; rejection for lack of admissibility.

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Procedural rule applied in the dispositive to waive the full written reasoning for the 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

Nichtannahmebeschluss mit Tenorbegründung: Erfolglose Verfassungsbeschwerde in einer Steuersache

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen, weil sie mit Blick auf die Rüge gehinderten Vortrags in der mündlichen Verhandlung und die darin enthaltene Gehörsrüge schon den in § 90 Absatz 2 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz zum Ausdruck kommenden Subsidiaritätsgrundsatz nicht wahrt und sie zudem nicht in einer den Anforderungen des § 23 Absatz 1 Satz 2, § 92 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz entsprechenden Weise die Möglichkeit einer Verletzung des Rechts auf informationelle Selbstbestimmung (Art. 2 Abs. 1 i.V.m. Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG) darlegt, sie insbesondere nicht substantiiert eine hinreichende Wahrscheinlichkeit eigener Betroffenheit etwa dazu vorbringt, inwieweit im vorliegenden Fall individualisierte oder individualisierbare Daten Gegenstand der mündlichen Verhandlung waren und weshalb Mitarbeitende von Telekommunikationsanbietern ein Interesse an einem Zugriff auf die vor dem Bundesfinanzhof geführte Verhandlung haben sollten.

[GRUENDE]

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.