Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 798/24 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2024:rk20240709.2bvr079823 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional complaint inadmissible for failure to submit complete challenged decision per §§ 23, 92 BVerfGG

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 798/24
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 Federal Constitutional Court (Second Senate, Third Chamber) rejected the constitutional complaint as inadmissible, leaving the challenged decision of the Higher Regional Court of Thuringia in force, and simultaneously declared the request for interim relief moot. The dispute concerned a ruling by the General State Prosecutor that the complaintant failed to submit the full text or substantial content of the underlying detention order and cited court records, which were necessary to assess the reasons for continued custody. The decisive legal basis was the procedural requirement under §§ 23(1) sentence 2 half-sentence 1 and 92 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG) to submit the complete text of the challenged act; because the applicant did not provide these documents, the court could not determine whether a fundamental rights violation was possible, rendering the complaint inadmissible without substantive review.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG; Constitutional complaint inadmissible for failure to submit complete challenged decision per §§ 23, 92 BVerfGG: The dispute concerned a ruling by the General State Prosecutor that the complaintant failed to submit the full text or substantial content of the underlying detention order and cited court records, which were necessary to assess the reasons for continued custody. The decisive legal basis was the procedural requirement under §§ 23(1) sentence 2 half-sentence 1 and 92 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG) to submit the complete text of the challenged act; because the applicant did not provide these documents, the court could not determine whether a fundamental rights violation was possible, rendering the complaint inadmissible without substantive review.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali violazione dei diritti procedurali procedimento sommario difetto di motivazione carcerazione cautelativa diritti fondamentali

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG
The application for interim relief was declared moot as a direct procedural consequence of the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 847/19
Constitutional complaint inadmissible for insufficient substantiation and failure to submit lower court decision
1 BvR 847/12
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint for failure to submit necessary documents and insufficient engagement with the challenged decision
2 BvR 637/18
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint for insufficient substantiation due to failure to submit underlying court records
2 BvR 923/24
Failure to substantiate alleged fundamental rights violation rendering constitutional complaint inadmissible under BVerfGG § 23(1) and § 92
1 BvR 471/21
Constitutional complaint rejected as manifestly inadmissible for failure to identify a concrete act of state authority and substantiate a constitutional grievance.

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 23 Absatz 1 Satz 2 Halbsatz 1, § 92 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz

The constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible because the appellant failed to submit the full text of the challenged decision as required by these procedural provisions.

§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG

The application for interim relief was declared moot as a direct procedural consequence of the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.

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

Nichtannahmebeschluss: Unzulässigkeit der Verfassungsbeschwerde mangels Vorlage von Unterlagen - Tenorbegründung

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen. Sie ist unzulässig, weil sie den Anforderungen gemäß § 23 Absatz 1 Satz 2 Halbsatz 1, § 92 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz nicht genügt. Insbesondere hat es der Beschwerdeführer versäumt, sowohl die Stellungnahme der Thüringer Generalstaatsanwaltschaft vom 10. April 2024 als auch „Blatt 655 ff. Band III“ und „Blatt 874 ff. Band IV der Akten“, auf die der angefochtene Beschluss des Thüringer Oberlandesgerichts vom 21. Mai 2024 im Zusammenhang mit der Erörterung des dringenden Tatverdachts und der Haftgründe ausdrücklich Bezug nimmt, vorzulegen oder den wesentlichen Inhalt wiederzugeben. Da damit maßgebliche Teile der Gründe des angefochtenen Beschlusses nicht mitgeteilt werden, lässt sich nicht beurteilen, ob eine Grundrechtsverletzung möglich erscheint.

Mit der Nichtannahme der Verfassungsbeschwerde wird der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung gegenstandslos (§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG).

[GRUENDE]

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.