Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvQ 50/12 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2012:qk20121123.2bvq005012 Generato dall'IA

Denial of interim relief for party conference venue: unreasonableness of pursuing main proceedings

Numero d'incarto 2 BvQ 50/12
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

**Decision Summary:** The German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) dismissed the applicant's request for interim relief, ruling that the challenge was inadmissible independent of any lack of procedural power of attorney. The dispute concerned the applicant's claim under Article 21(1) of the Basic Law regarding the refusal to provide a city hall for a state party congress. The Court held that it was not evident that pursuing the ordinary legal remedies in the main proceedings would be unreasonable for the applicant, particularly as the applicant failed to demonstrate why holding the congress at the specific location and date was unavoidable.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art. 21 Abs. 1 GG; Denial of interim relief for party conference venue: unreasonableness of pursuing main proceedings: The dispute concerned the applicant's claim under Article 21(1) of the Basic Law regarding the refusal to provide a city hall for a state party congress. The Court held that it was not evident that pursuing the ordinary legal remedies in the main proceedings would be unreasonable for the applicant, particularly as the applicant failed to demonstrate why holding the congress at the specific location and date was unavoidable.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
diritto di manifestare diritti procedurali procedura ordinaria procedimento sommario partiti politici potere politico

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Art. 21 Abs. 1 GG
The substantive right explicitly invoked by the applicant that the court addressed in the dispositive order dismissing the interim relief request.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 79, 275
Rechtsweg in der Hauptsache zu beschreiten (vgl. BVerfGE 79, 275 ).
Generato dall'IA
1 BvQ 61/19
Interim relief denied where pending constitutional complaint lacks exhausted remedies and substantive reasoning
2 BvQ 31/17
Denial of interim relief where underlying constitutional complaint is inadmissible due to unexhausted ordinary judicial remedies
2 BvR 671/26
Denial of interim relief in constitutional complaint for failure to substantiate potential fundamental rights violation under BVerfGG
1 BvR 1005/20
Constitutional complaint challenging a public assembly ban: denial of interim relief due to failure to exhaust administrative court emergency remedies
2 BvR 649/19
Constitutional complaint against denial of state subsidies to a party-affiliated foundation: exhaustion of administrative court remedies required for non-constitutional public law disputes.

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
Art. 21 Abs. 1 GG

The substantive right explicitly invoked by the applicant that the court addressed in the dispositive order dismissing the interim relief request.

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

Ablehnung des Erlasses einer einstweiligen Anordnung: Überlassung einer Stadthalle für Landesparteitag - Zumutbarkeit der Beschreitung des Hauptsacherechtswegs

[TENOR]

Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung wird unabhängig vom Fehlen einer Verfahrensvollmacht abgelehnt. Der Antragsteller

macht eine Verletzung in seinen Rechten aus Artikel 21 Absatz 1 des Grundgesetzes geltend, die sich auf die Hauptsache bezieht;

es ist nicht ersichtlich, dass es für ihn unzumutbar sein könnte, zur Klärung der aufgeworfenen Rechtsfragen zunächst den

Rechtsweg in der Hauptsache zu beschreiten (vgl. BVerfGE 79, 275 ).

Er hat nicht dargelegt, weshalb er den Landesparteitag unausweichlich am vorgesehenen Ort und Termin abhalten muss.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.