Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
1 BvR 2480/25 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2025:rk20251206.1bvr248025 AI generated

Recusal request rejected for lacking substantive grounds to demonstrate judicial bias

Case Number 1 BvR 2480/25
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the constitutional complaint without a reasoned decision and rejected the recusal request against a judge as inadmissible, with the latter ruling rendering the matter final and unappealable. The case involved a procedural challenge wherein the petitioner sought to recuse specific court personnel and filed a constitutional complaint, but the recusal motion against one judge was deemed to contain only arguments wholly unsuitable to substantiate a reasonable suspicion of bias. The court applied § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG to waive a further justification for the non-acceptance of the main complaint, relying on the doctrine that unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient to demonstrate judicial bias.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Recusal request rejected for lacking substantive grounds to demonstrate judicial bias: The case involved a procedural challenge wherein the petitioner sought to recuse specific court personnel and filed a constitutional complaint, but the recusal motion against one judge was deemed to contain only arguments wholly unsuitable to substantiate a reasonable suspicion of bias. The court applied § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG to waive a further justification for the non-acceptance of the main complaint, relying on the doctrine that unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient to demonstrate judicial bias.

Keywords

AI generated
motion for recusal judicial bias inadequate constitutional complaint substantive justification right of rescission action for judicial separation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural basis for waiving the written justification for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
BVerfGE 159, 26
BVerfGE 159, 26 ) bedarf es einer Entscheidung über das Ablehnungsgesuch gegen den Präsidenten Harbarth und den Richter Eifert nicht.
BVerfGE 153, 72
AI generated
1 BvR 754/17
Constitutional complaint and judicial recusal dismissed for lack of adequate substantiation of bias and inadmissibility
2 BvR 1624/22
Recusal motion and constitutional complaint rejected for lack of admissible bias grounds and insufficient legal argumentation
1 BvR 2133/25
Constitutional complaint and recusal motion for unsubstantiated bias dismissed for lack of suitable grounds
2 BvR 1182/20
Constitutional complaint and recusal request dismissed for lack of suitable grounds establishing bias and manifest inadmissibility
2 BvR 1622/22
Unsubstantiated recusal motion and insufficiently reasoned constitutional complaint

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Procedural basis for waiving the written justification for 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 Verfassungsbeschwerde ohne weitere Begründung - Verwerfung eines offensichtlich unzulässigen Ablehnungsgesuchs

[TENOR]

Das Ablehnungsgesuch gegen die Richterin Härtel wird als unzulässig verworfen.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Mangels ihrer Berufung zur Entscheidung im vorliegenden Verfahren (vgl. BVerfGE 159, 26 ) bedarf es einer Entscheidung über das Ablehnungsgesuch gegen den Präsidenten Harbarth und den Richter Eifert nicht. Das Ablehnungsgesuch gegen die Richterin Härtel ist als unzulässig zu verwerfen, da es lediglich Ausführungen enthält, die zur Begründung der Besorgnis der Befangenheit gänzlich ungeeignet sind (vgl. BVerfGE 153, 72 ).

Von einer Begründung der Nichtannahme der Verfassungsbeschwerde zur Entscheidung wird nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.