Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
1 BvR 965/26 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2026:rk20260611.1bvr096526 AI generated

Constitutional complaint rejected; scope of ex officio review for challenge to court composition under Article 101(1) Sentence 2 GG

Case Number 1 BvR 965/26
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The German Federal Constitutional Court ordered that the constitutional complaint be not accepted for decision, thereby leaving the challenged lower-court judgment in force, while affirming that the three-judge chamber was properly constituted. The dispute involved a constitutional complaint in which the petitioner raised a formal challenge regarding the validity of the court panel's composition, but provided no substantive arguments to cast doubt on its legitimacy. The decisive legal basis was the principle that the court reviews its own composition ex officio only when there is specific cause to do so under Article 101(1) Sentence 2 of the Basic Law; finding no such cause, the chamber applied Section 93d(1) Sentence 3 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act to dispense with a detailed explanation of its decision.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Constitutional complaint rejected; scope of ex officio review for challenge to court composition under Article 101(1) Sentence 2 GG: The dispute involved a constitutional complaint in which the petitioner raised a formal challenge regarding the validity of the court panel's composition, but provided no substantive arguments to cast doubt on its legitimacy. The decisive legal basis was the principle that the court reviews its own composition ex officio only when there is specific cause to do so under Article 101(1) Sentence 2 of the Basic Law; finding no such cause, the chamber applied Section 93d(1) Sentence 3 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act to dispense with a detailed explanation of its decision.

Keywords

AI generated
inadequate constitutional complaint constitutional principle scope of review substantive argument formal legal force judicial review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural rule applied in the dispositive to dispense with a detailed reasoning for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
BVerfGE 131, 230
BVerfGE 131, 230 m.w.N.; BVerfG, Beschluss der 2.
1 BvR 2279/22
Constitutional complaint refused for insufficient substantiation of fundamental rights and chamber composition claims
2 BvR 966/21
Constitutional complaint rejecting constitutional chamber composition challenge under Article 101(1) sentence 2 GG
AI generated
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 1098/11
Constitutional complaint over refusal of a substantive decision by a chamber of the Federal Constitutional Court
2 BvR 966/21
Constitutional complaint rejecting constitutional chamber composition challenge under Article 101(1) sentence 2 GG
2 BvR 1968/20
Constitutional complaint against non-acceptance of review by the Federal Constitutional Court without substantive justification or statutory basis cited in the dispositive.
1 BvR 2279/22
Constitutional complaint refused for insufficient substantiation of fundamental rights and chamber composition claims

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Procedural rule applied in the dispositive to dispense with a detailed reasoning 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 - Prüfung der ordnungsgemäßen Kammerbesetzung nur anlassbezogen

[TENOR]

Die 3. Kammer des Ersten Senats des Bundesverfassungsgerichts ist ordnungsgemäß besetzt.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Die beschwerdeführende Person hat eine Besetzungsrüge erhoben. Die Kammer hat die ordnungsgemäße Besetzung zur Wahrung des Anspruchs aus Artikel 101 Absatz 1 Satz 2 GG von Amts wegen jedoch nur zu prüfen, soweit hierzu Anlass besteht (vgl. BVerfGE 131, 230 m.w.N.; BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 17. Januar 2023 - 1 BvR 2279/22 -, Rn. 1). Das ist hier nicht der Fall. Es sind nicht ansatzweise Gründe dafür vorgetragen, um an einer ordnungsgemäßen Kammerbesetzung zu zweifeln (vgl. BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 14. September 2021 - 2 BvR 966/21 -, Rn. 3).

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.