Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 4/12 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2012:rk20121112.1bvr000412 Generato dall'IA

Delaying constitutional complaint decision for unexercised file access despite pending interim relief request

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 4/12
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 (First Senate, First Chamber) issued a non-acceptance order, rejecting the constitutional complaint and refusing to delay its decision or order the attachment of requested files, thereby leaving the underlying administrative court decisions in force. The dispute concerned the complainant’s request for a brief stay of proceedings due to their inability to utilize pre-granted file access for their constitutional complaint, which was coupled with a request for interim relief. The Court held that it was not obliged to wait further for the complainant to exercise the file access, as they had been repeatedly notified of the necessity to do so quickly given the urgency of the interim relief application, and it found no indication that the specific files requested would demonstrate a violation of fundamental or fundamental-equivalent rights by the challenged administrative rulings. The decision was grounded in § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG, which limits acceptance to cases where it is necessary for the enforcement of rights, and § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, which allowed for the omission of further reasoning.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Delaying constitutional complaint decision for unexercised file access despite pending interim relief request: The dispute concerned the complainant’s request for a brief stay of proceedings due to their inability to utilize pre-granted file access for their constitutional complaint, which was coupled with a request for interim relief. The Court held that it was not obliged to wait further for the complainant to exercise the file access, as they had been repeatedly notified of the necessity to do so quickly given the urgency of the interim relief application, and it found no indication that the specific files requested would demonstrate a violation of fundamental or fundamental-equivalent rights by the challenged administrative rulings. The decision was grounded in § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG, which limits acceptance to cases where it is necessary for the enforcement of rights, and § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, which allowed for the omission of further reasoning.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
procedura pendente reclamo amministrativo limiti costituzionali istanza di autorizzazione all’esecuzione – Decisione consultazione degli atti procedimento sommario

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG
The primary ground for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint, cited to establish that the necessary conditions for acceptance were not met.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural rule applied to waive the provision of a further detailed reasoning for the decision.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 90, 22
dazu BVerfGE 90, 22 ) nicht vorliegen.
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 1968/20
Constitutional complaint against non-acceptance of review by the Federal Constitutional Court without substantive justification or statutory basis cited in the dispositive.
2 BvR 671/26
Denial of interim relief in constitutional complaint for failure to substantiate potential fundamental rights violation under BVerfGG
2 BvR 807/23
Non-admission of constitutional complaint and mootness of interim relief request
1 BvR 1136/17
Insufficiency of substantive reasoning for constitutional complaint due to missing prior procedural decisions and unexcused delay in filing required documents
1 BvR 626/18
Verfassungsbeschwerde: Fristversäumnis bei Wiedereinsetzungsantrag – Darlegungslast für fehlendes Verschulden

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG

The primary ground for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint, cited to establish that the necessary conditions for acceptance were not met.

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Procedural rule applied to waive the provision of a further detailed reasoning 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: Kein weiteres Zuwarten mit Entscheidung bei angekündigter, aber nicht genommener Akteneinsicht

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist nicht zur Entscheidung anzunehmen, weil die Voraussetzungen nach § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG hierfür

(vgl. dazu BVerfGE 90, 22 ) nicht vorliegen. Die Annahme ist insbesondere nicht zur Durchsetzung der vom Beschwerdeführer

als verletzt gerügten Grund- und grundrechtsgleichen Rechte angezeigt.

Die Kammer sieht sich nicht dazu veranlasst, mit ihrer Entscheidung über die Annahme der Verfassungsbeschwerde zur Entscheidung

noch weiter zuzuwarten. Dem Beschwerdeführer ist bereits im Februar 2012 Akteneinsicht bewilligt worden. Er wurde zudem mehrmals

auf die Notwendigkeit einer kurzfristigen Einnahme der Akteneinsicht, die sich nicht zuletzt daraus ergibt, dass der Beschwerdeführer

seine Verfassungsbeschwerde mit einem Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung verbunden hat, hingewiesen. Die Akteneinsicht

hat er bis zum heutigen Tag trotz mehrerer Ankündigungen nicht genommen.

Ebenfalls nicht veranlasst ist die vom Beschwerdeführer beantragte Beiziehung von Akten. Es ist nicht ersichtlich, dass diese

Akten belegen können, dass die im vorliegenden Verfahren angegriffenen - verwaltungsgerichtlichen - Entscheidungen gegen Grund-

oder grundrechtsgleiche Rechte verstoßen.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.