Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
1 BvR 1933/08 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2011:rk20111221.1bvr193308 Généré par l'IA

Constitutional complaint on waiving independent justification in parallel decisions under § 93d BVerfGG

Numéro de cause 1 BvR 1933/08
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Allemagne (DE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Irrecevable (Inadmissible)
Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the constitutional complaint, rendering the decision final and unappealable. The case involved a challenge to a constitutional matter where the petitioner claimed applicability of a parallel decision. The Court based its ruling on the doctrine of parallel decisions (Parallelentscheidungen), referencing the reasons provided in a concurrent order from the same Chamber issued on December 8, 2011. Under § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, the Court waived providing an independent substantive justification, relying instead on the cited precedent to resolve the dispute.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Constitutional complaint on waiving independent justification in parallel decisions under § 93d BVerfGG: The case involved a challenge to a constitutional matter where the petitioner claimed applicability of a parallel decision. The Court based its ruling on the doctrine of parallel decisions (Parallelentscheidungen), referencing the reasons provided in a concurrent order from the same Chamber issued on December 8, 2011. Under § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, the Court waived providing an independent substantive justification, relying instead on the cited precedent to resolve the dispute.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
bien-fondé matériel objet du litige motivation insuffisante des griefs constitutionnels motivation du revirement jurisprudentiel unité de la procédure égalité de traitement constitutionnelle

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural rule permitting the court to waive a further independent legal justification by referencing a parallel decision.

Jurisprudence citée

Généré par l'IA
1 BvR 1932/08
Scope of judicial review over regulatory agency’s market definition and discretion in telecom market regulation
Généré par l'IA
1 BvR 2846/19
Constitutional complaint on parallel proceedings; denial of admission under § 93d BVerfGG
1 BvR 1390/11
Constitutional complaint: Non-acceptance due to parallel decision, waiving justification under § 93d BVerfGG
1 BvR 1234/11
Non-acceptance of constitutional complaint based on parallel decision and waiver of further reasoning under § 93d Abs. 1 BVerfGG
1 BvR 1319/20
Constitutional complaint rejected as parallel decision: dispensation with reasoning based on identical prior rulings under § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
1 BvR 1403/11
Constitutional complaint non-acceptance via parallel decision citing § 93d BVerfGG

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Procedural rule permitting the court to waive a further independent legal justification by referencing a parallel decision.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

Nichtannahmebeschluss: Parallelentscheidung

[GRUENDE]

Zur Begründung wird auf die im vorliegenden Verfahren ebenfalls Geltung beanspruchenden Ausführungen im Beschluss der 1. Kammer des Ersten Senats des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom 8. Dezember 2011 im Verfahren 1 BvR 1932/08 (www.bverfg.de) verwiesen.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.