Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
1 BvQ 92/19 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2020:qk20200109.1bvq009219 Généré par l'IA

Urgency requirement for interim relief under § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG

Numéro de cause 1 BvQ 92/19
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Allemagne (DE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)
Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany’s First Senate (First Chamber) denied the application for the issuance of interim injunctive relief, rejecting the requester's claim and leaving the status quo in force. The case involved a request for an *einstweilige Anordnung* (temporary order), where the court determined that the applicant failed to demonstrate the requisite urgency for provisional judicial intervention. The decisive legal basis was § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG, which mandates that interim relief is only granted if a provisional regulation is urgently necessary; the court concluded that this threshold of urgency was not met, rendering the decision final and unchallengeable.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 32 Abs 1 BVerfGG; Urgency requirement for interim relief under § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG: The case involved a request for an *einstweilige Anordnung* (temporary order), where the court determined that the applicant failed to demonstrate the requisite urgency for provisional judicial intervention. The decisive legal basis was § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG, which mandates that interim relief is only granted if a provisional regulation is urgently necessary; the court concluded that this threshold of urgency was not met, rendering the decision final and unchallengeable.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
référé défaut d'urgence exigence constitutionnelle procédure préjudicielle d'urgence statut juridique inobservation du délai légal

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 32 Abs 1 BVerfGG
Cited in the dispositive as the legal basis for denying the application for interim relief because a provisional regulation was not urgently required.
Généré par l'IA
1 BvR 1390/17
Interim injunctive relief denied for lack of substantiated serious disadvantages or general welfare necessity
1 BvQ 66/17
Denial of interim relief due to manifest lack of substantiation of constitutional complaint
2 BvQ 63/22
Constitutional complaint for interim relief rejected due to insufficient substantiation of § 32(1) BVerfGG requirements
1 BvQ 45/17
Interim constitutional relief denied due to failure to substantiate violation of specific fundamental rights against a non-act state measure
1 BvQ 85/23
Inadmissibility of interim constitutional relief for failure to substantiate the main complaint and submit challenged decisions

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG

Cited in the dispositive as the legal basis for denying the application for interim relief because a provisional regulation was not urgently required.

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

Ablehnung des Erlasses einer eA mit Tenorbegründung: Vorläufige Regelung nicht iSd § 32 Abs 1 BVerfGG dringend geboten

[TENOR]

Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung wird abgelehnt, weil eine vorläufige Regelung nicht im Sinne von § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG dringend geboten ist.

[GRUENDE]

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.