Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
1 BvR 2356/20 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2021:rk20210111.1bvr235620 Généré par l'IA

Constitutional validity of police authority for district-specific speed controls under § 32 Abs. 6 SOG ND

Numéro de cause 1 BvR 2356/20
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 declined to accept the constitutional complaint for decision, leaving the challenged lower-court proceedings in force without a reasoned opinion pursuant to § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG. The dispute concerned a challenge to the police's statutory authority to conduct district-specific speed controls under § 32 Abs. 6 of the North Rhine-Westphalia State Police Act (SOG ND nF), alleging that this specific policing measure violated fundamental rights. The decision serves as a procedural dismissal based on the non-acceptance criteria, confirming that the respondent state's enforcement of the administrative speed-control provision did not warrant further constitutional review at the chamber level.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Constitutional validity of police authority for district-specific speed controls under § 32 Abs. 6 SOG ND: 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG. The dispute concerned a challenge to the police's statutory authority to conduct district-specific speed controls under § 32 Abs. 6 of the North Rhine-Westphalia State Police Act (SOG ND nF), alleging that this specific policing measure violated fundamental rights. The decision serves as a procedural dismissal based on the non-acceptance criteria, confirming that the respondent state's enforcement of the administrative speed-control provision did not warrant further constitutional review at the chamber level.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
contrôle de police expertise juridique exécution droits constitutionnels spécifiques autorité administrative prétention légale

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Cited as the procedural basis for omitting a reasoned judgment and the decision's non-appealability.
Généré par l'IA
2 BvR 1949/18
Constitutional complaint against speed violation fine: failure to substantiate fair procedure and information access claims under §§ 23, 92 BVerfGG
2 BvR 759/10
Constadonal admissibility of covert speed-enforcement photography as basis for administrative fines: scope of § 100h StPO and informational self-determination
2 BvR 2213/20
Failure to substantiate constitutional complaint in speeding offense case due to missing procedural records and lack of engagement with case law standards
2 BvQ 86/20
Eilantrag in Klageerzwingungssache abgelehnt mangels subsumtionsfähiger Darlegung der Grundrechtsverletzung
1 BvR 2146/22
Insufficient substantiation of constitutional complaint challenging legislative omission of traffic speed limits as violation of climate protection mandate and fundamental rights

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

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

Cited as the procedural basis for omitting a reasoned judgment and the decision's non-appealability.

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

Kammerbeschluss ohne Begründung: Verfassungsbeschwerde in Bezug auf polizeiliche Befugnis zur abschnittsbezogenen Geschwindigkeitskontrolle gem § 32 Abs 6 SOG ND nF erfolglos

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.