Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 624/11 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2011:rk20110420.1bvr062411 Generato dall'IA

Attorney monopoly (Anwaltsvorbehalt) applicability to creditor representation in judicial enforcement auctions

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 624/11
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 refused to accept the constitutional complaint for decision, thereby upholding the lower courts' denial of relief to the complainant. The dispute concerned a real estate agent acting as a creditor's representative in judicial enforcement auction proceedings, who challenged the application of the statutory attorney monopoly (Anwaltsvorbehalt) to this specific role, arguing it violated her constitutional rights. The Court held that the complaint lacked fundamental constitutional significance and found no indication of a fundamental rights violation, affirming its consistent jurisprudence that the attorney monopoly is a suitable, necessary, and appropriate measure for protecting the right to legal recourse and ensuring the orderly administration of justice. Relying on the German Basic Law and established case law, the Court confirmed that extending the scope of § 79(2) Code of Civil Procedure to cover creditor representation in judicial enforcement auctions is constitutionally permissible.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Attorney monopoly (Anwaltsvorbehalt) applicability to creditor representation in judicial enforcement auctions: The dispute concerned a real estate agent acting as a creditor's representative in judicial enforcement auction proceedings, who challenged the application of the statutory attorney monopoly (Anwaltsvorbehalt) to this specific role, arguing it violated her constitutional rights. The Court held that the complaint lacked fundamental constitutional significance and found no indication of a fundamental rights violation, affirming its consistent jurisprudence that the attorney monopoly is a suitable, necessary, and appropriate measure for protecting the right to legal recourse and ensuring the orderly administration of justice. Relying on the German Basic Law and established case law, the Court confirmed that extending the scope of § 79(2) Code of Civil Procedure to cover creditor representation in judicial enforcement auctions is constitutionally permissible.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
monopolio legale diritto processuale istanza di autorizzazione all’esecuzione – Decisione rappresentanza legale diritto legale aggiudicazione all'incanto

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG
Cited as the procedural basis for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint because the prerequisites for admission were not met.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Cited as the procedural basis for waiving the further explanation of the reasons for the decision.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 10, 185
1 BvR 1632/10
Anwaltsvorbehalt in Erbscheinsverfahren: Verstoß gegen Berufsausübungsfreiheit gewerblicher Erbenermittler
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 1632/10
Anwaltsvorbehalt in Erbscheinsverfahren: Verstoß gegen Berufsausübungsfreiheit gewerblicher Erbenermittler
V ZB 13/12
Zwangsversteigerung: Rückgriff auf Einzelmeistgebot nach Zuschlagsversagung auf Gesamtgebot wegen Unterschreidung der Wertgrenze
V ZA 35/15
Scope of review of a German enforcement court regarding the denial of legal aid for a challenge to a forced auction award based on statutory inheritance claims and fundamental rights
IX ZB 30/17
Mandatory attorney representation for legal appeals to the Bundesgerichtshof and the constitutional validity of the resulting limitation on party rights
2 BvR 431/09
Right to be heard and gross violation of fundamental rights in an internet auction contract dispute involving statutory auction rules and minor economic harm.

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Cited as the procedural basis for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint because the prerequisites for admission were not met.

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Cited as the procedural basis for waiving the further explanation of the reasons for the 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

Nichtannahmebeschluss: Keine verfassungsrechtlichen Bedenken gegen Anwaltsvorbehalt für Terminsvertretung von Gläubigern in Zwangsversteigerungsverfahren - hier: Immobilienmakler als Gläubigervertreter im Zwangsversteigerungsverfahren

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist nicht zur Entscheidung anzunehmen. Die Voraussetzungen des § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG liegen nicht

vor. Die Verfassungsbeschwerde hat keine grundsätzliche verfassungsrechtliche Bedeutung. Ihre Annahme ist auch nicht zur Durchsetzung

der von der Beschwerdeführerin als verletzt gerügten Rechte angezeigt. Für eine Verletzung von Grundrechten ist nichts ersichtlich.

Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat wiederholt entschieden, dass der Gesetzgeber den Anwaltsvorbehalt zum Schutz des Rechtsuchenden

sowie im Interesse einer geordneten Rechtspflege für geeignet, erforderlich und angemessen halten durfte (vgl. BVerfGE 10,

185 ; 75, 246 ; 97, 12 ; BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 23. August 2010 -

1 BvR 1632/10 -, NJW 2010, S. 3291). Es begegnet keinen verfassungsrechtlichen Bedenken, den Anwendungsbereich des § 79 Abs.

2 der Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO) auch auf die Terminsvertretung von Gläubigern in gerichtlichen Zwangsversteigerungsverfahren

zu erstrecken.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.