Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 63/22 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2024:rk20240416.2bvr006322 Generato dall'IA

Recusal of constitutional court judges based on statutory admission procedure and panel assignment; non-acceptance of complaint without reasoning under § 93d BVerfGG

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 63/22
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Inammissibile (Inadmissible)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The German Federal Constitutional Court issued a non-acceptance decision, rejecting the applicant's constitutional complaint without further reasoning and dismissing the associated recusal motions as inadmissible. The applicant challenged the procedural conduct of the court's review phase and the composition of the deciding panel, seeking the recusal of the Vizepräsidentin, two active judges, and four former judges. The Court held that the recusal motions against the Vizepräsidentin and the two active judges were inadmissible because they were effectively attempts to challenge the statutory admission procedure and, respectively, directed against judges not assigned to the merits decision, while the motions against the former judges were moot due to their no longer holding office; consequently, the applicant did not prevail, and the court's refusal to accept the main constitutional complaint for decision remains final and unchallengeable under § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Recusal of constitutional court judges based on statutory admission procedure and panel assignment; non-acceptance of complaint without reasoning under § 93d BVerfGG: The applicant challenged the procedural conduct of the court's review phase and the composition of the deciding panel, seeking the recusal of the Vizepräsidentin, two active judges, and four former judges. The Court held that the recusal motions against the Vizepräsidentin and the two active judges were inadmissible because they were effectively attempts to challenge the statutory admission procedure and, respectively, directed against judges not assigned to the merits decision, while the motions against the former judges were moot due to their no longer holding office; consequently, the applicant did not prevail, and the court's refusal to accept the main constitutional complaint for decision remains final and unchallengeable under § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
domanda di ricusazione controllo della procedura cessione legale motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali esame nel merito parzialità del giudice

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Cited in the reasoning and operative part to justify the omission of a detailed explanation for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint for decision.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 153, 72
BVerfGE 142, 1
Das Ablehnungsgesuch gegen den Richter Maidowski und die Richterin Wallrabenstein ist unzulässig, weil die abgelehnten Richter nicht zur Entscheidung in der Sache berufen sind (vgl. BVerfGE 142, 1 ).
BVerfGE 131, 239
Das Ablehnungsgesuch gegen den ehemaligen Richter Huber, die ehemalige Richterin Baer, den ehemaligen Richter Müller und die ehemalige Richterin Kessal-Wulf bedarf keiner Entscheidung, weil diese nicht mehr Mitglieder des Bundesverfassungsgerichts sind (vgl. BVerfGE 131, 239 ).
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 1906/21
Recusal request rejected for judges not assigned to case and non-admission of constitutional complaint under § 93d BVerfGG
2 BvR 1763/19
Recusal of Federal Constitutional Court judges and challenge to constitutional composition of the bench
1 BvR 1511/18, 1 BvR 1668/18, 1 BvR 1969/18, 1 BvR 2133/18, 1 BvR 2379/18, 1 BvR 2445/18, 1 BvR 2483/18, 1 BvR 2490/18, 1 BvR 2494/18, 1 BvR 2560/18
Recusal requests targeting non-chamber judges; dispensation with reasoned rejection under § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
2 BvR 750/19
BVerfG: Recusal of constitutional judges for prior adverse decision and substantive admissibility of constitutional complaints
1 BvR 1126/17
Rejection of manifestly inadmissible recusal motions and non-admission of constitutional complaint without further reasoning under § 93d BVerfGG

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Cited in the reasoning and operative part to justify the omission of a detailed explanation for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint for decision.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Nichtannahme einer Verfassungsbeschwerde ohne weitere Begründung - Verwerfung offensichtlich unzulässiger Ablehnungsgesuche

[TENOR]

Das Ablehnungsgesuch gegen die Vizepräsidentin König, den Richter Maidowski und die Richterin Wallrabenstein wird als unzulässig verworfen

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Das Ablehnungsgesuch gegen die Vizepräsidentin König ist unzulässig, weil es in der Sache darauf hinausläuft, dass die Anwendung der gesetzlichen Vorschriften über das Annahmeverfahren nach §§ 93a ff. BVerfGG die Besorgnis der Befangenheit begründen soll; damit ist es gänzlich ungeeignet und die abgelehnte Vizepräsidentin auch nicht von der Entscheidung über das offensichtlich unzulässige Ablehnungsgesuch ausgeschlossen (vgl. BVerfGE 153, 72 ).

Das Ablehnungsgesuch gegen den Richter Maidowski und die Richterin Wallrabenstein ist unzulässig, weil die abgelehnten Richter nicht zur Entscheidung in der Sache berufen sind (vgl. BVerfGE 142, 1 ).

Das Ablehnungsgesuch gegen den ehemaligen Richter Huber, die ehemalige Richterin Baer, den ehemaligen Richter Müller und die ehemalige Richterin Kessal-Wulf bedarf keiner Entscheidung, weil diese nicht mehr Mitglieder des Bundesverfassungsgerichts sind (vgl. BVerfGE 131, 239 ).

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.