Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 1936/11 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2013:rk20131211.1bvr193611 Generato dall'IA

Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint against search warrant and related rulings due to missed filing deadline and insufficient substantiation

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 1936/11
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 (BVerfG) dismissed the constitutional complaint as inadmissible, upholding the lower courts' decisions. The dispute involved challenges to a search warrant, the subsequent search of a residence, and related procedural rulings issued by a local court, a higher regional court, and the Federal Court of Justice (BGH). The BVerfG found the complaints filed against the local and higher regional court decisions inadmissible due to the expiration of the one-month filing deadline under § 93 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG, noting that an invalid appeal to the BGH did not toll this period and no remedy was available because the applicant failed to cure the defect within the statutory two-week window. The portions of the complaint directed at the BGH and later higher regional court decisions were rejected for insufficient substantiation under §§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 and 92 BVerfGG, failing to meet the mandatory requirements for explaining fundamental rights violations.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG, § 93 Abs. 2 Satz 4 BVerfGG, § 93 Abs. 1 BVerfGG, § 92 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG; Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint against search warrant and related rulings due to missed filing deadline and insufficient substantiation: The dispute involved challenges to a search warrant, the subsequent search of a residence, and related procedural rulings issued by a local court, a higher regional court, and the Federal Court of Justice (BGH). The BVerfG found the complaints filed against the local and higher regional court decisions inadmissible due to the expiration of the one-month filing deadline under § 93 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG, noting that an invalid appeal to the BGH did not toll this period and no remedy was available because the applicant failed to cure the defect within the statutory two-week window. The portions of the complaint directed at the BGH and later higher regional court decisions were rejected for insufficient substantiation under §§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 and 92 BVerfGG, failing to meet the mandatory requirements for explaining fundamental rights violations.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
mandato di perquisizione termine processuale perentorio requisito costituzionale vizio di procedura ricorso costituzionale all'estero diritto legale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG
Cited in the numbered orders as the basis for declaring the constitutional complaint inadmissible due to the expiration of the filing deadline.
§ 93 Abs. 2 Satz 4 BVerfGG
Cited in the numbered orders to establish that no re-instatement was possible because the applicant failed to cure the procedural defect within the statutory two-week period.
§ 93 Abs. 1 BVerfGG
Cited in the numbered orders to confirm the inadmissibility of challenges against the local court's search warrant and related procedural decisions.
§ 92 BVerfGG
1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG).
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Cited in the numbered orders to justify the omission of a further detailed reasoning for the decision.
§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG
Cited in the numbered orders as the legal basis for rejecting portions of the complaint due to insufficient substantiation.
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 834/19
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint for lack of substantiation; non-extendability of filing deadline
1 BvR 1372/15
Constitutional complaint dismissed for missed filing deadline based on avoidable legal error regarding § 93 Abs. 1 BVerfGG and insufficient substantiation.
2 BvR 847/21
Constitutional complaint inadmissible due to lack of substantiation regarding service of the underlying ruling to counsel and insufficient identification of constitutional violation.
2 BvR 1004/13
Constitutional complaint inadmissibility: Start of filing deadline upon multiple notifications and failure to substantiate timely filing
1 BvR 1458/19
Constitutional complaint inadmissible due to missed filing deadline and late submission of mandatory attachments, denying reinstatement after failure to justify within the two-week period.

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Cited in the numbered orders as the basis for declaring the constitutional complaint inadmissible due to the expiration of the filing deadline.

§ 93 Abs. 2 Satz 4 BVerfGG

Cited in the numbered orders to establish that no re-instatement was possible because the applicant failed to cure the procedural defect within the statutory two-week period.

§ 93 Abs. 1 BVerfGG

Cited in the numbered orders to confirm the inadmissibility of challenges against the local court's search warrant and related procedural decisions.

§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG

Cited in the numbered orders as the legal basis for rejecting portions of the complaint due to insufficient substantiation.

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Cited in the numbered orders to justify the omission 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: Unzulässigkeit einer Urteilsverfassungsbeschwerde wegen Versäumung der Monatsfrist des § 93 Abs 1 S 1 BVerfGG sowie mangels hinreichender Substantiierung - unstatthafte Rechtsbeschwerde zum BGH hielt Beschwerdefrist nicht offen

[GRUENDE]

Ungeachtet der vorgebrachten Zweifel, ob die angegriffenen Entscheidungen materiell gewichtige Grundrechtsbelange hinreichend berücksichtigen, ist die Verfassungsbeschwerde nicht zur Entscheidung anzunehmen. Sie ist unzulässig.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist, soweit sich der Beschwerdeführer gegen den Beschluss des Oberlandesgerichts vom 24. Juni 2010 wendet, unzulässig, weil sie die Beschwerdefrist des § 93 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG nicht einhält. Die unstatthafte Rechtsbeschwerde zum Bundesgerichtshof war nicht geeignet, die Monatsfrist offen zu halten. Hinsichtlich der Fristversäumnis kam eine Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand auch von Amts wegen nicht in Betracht, da der Beschwerdeführer die Prozesshandlung - Einlegung der Verfassungsbeschwerde - nicht innerhalb der Zweiwochenfrist des § 93 Abs. 2 Satz 4 BVerfGG nachgeholt hat.

Soweit sich der Beschwerdeführer gegen den Beschluss des Amtsgerichts vom 15. September 2009 wendet, welcher die Durchsuchung angeordnet hatte sowie andererseits gegen die Durchsuchung der Wohnung am 17. September 2009, sind die Verfassungsbeschwerden ebenfalls mangels Einhaltung der Beschwerdefrist gemäß § 93 Abs. 1 BVerfGG unzulässig. Selbiges gilt für die ebenfalls angefochtene Nichtabhilfeentscheidung des Amtsgerichts vom 1. Februar 2010.

Zuletzt genügt die Verfassungsbeschwerde im Hinblick auf die Beschlüsse des Bundesgerichtshofs vom 1. März 2011 sowie denjenigen des Oberlandesgerichts vom 10. Mai 2011 nicht den Substantiierungsanforderungen, die an eine Verfassungsbeschwerde zu stellen sind (vgl. § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG).

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.