Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvQ 22/15 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2015:qk20150716.2bvq002215 Generato dall'IA

Interim constitutional relief: Subsidiarity requirement mandating exhaustion of specialized judicial remedies under § 114 StVollzG

Numero d'incarto 2 BvQ 22/15
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

The Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's request for interim relief, finding that the prerequisite conditions under § 32(1) BVerfGG were not met. The dispute concerned a petition for an interim injunction challenging the execution of criminal sentences, specifically regarding custodial conditions or liberty restrictions. The Court held that the constitutional right to interim relief is subsidiary to specialized legal remedies; therefore, the applicant was required to first exhaust available provisional remedies before the competent specialized court, specifically by seeking an order under § 114(2) sentence 2 of the Act on the Execution of Sentences (StVollzG). The Court rejected the applicant's argument that accessing the specialized court was unreasonable based on alleged negative bias by the Criminal Enforcement Chamber, concluding that no exceptional grounds existed to bypass the requirement of exhausting specialized judicial channels.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG, § 114 Abs. 2 S. 2 StVollzG; Interim constitutional relief: Subsidiarity requirement mandating exhaustion of specialized judicial remedies under § 114 StVollzG: The dispute concerned a petition for an interim injunction challenging the execution of criminal sentences, specifically regarding custodial conditions or liberty restrictions. The Court held that the constitutional right to interim relief is subsidiary to specialized legal remedies; therefore, the applicant was required to first exhaust available provisional remedies before the competent specialized court, specifically by seeking an order under § 114(2) sentence 2 of the Act on the Execution of Sentences (StVollzG). The Court rejected the applicant's argument that accessing the specialized court was unreasonable based on alleged negative bias by the Criminal Enforcement Chamber, concluding that no exceptional grounds existed to bypass the requirement of exhausting specialized judicial channels.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
procedimento sommario requisito costituzionale esaurimento delle istanze esecuzione delle pene restrizione di libertà parzialità del giudice

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG
The main ground for dismissing the request for interim relief due to the absence of necessary legal prerequisites.
§ 114 Abs. 2 S. 2 StVollzG
The procedural rule defining the mandatory prior resort to the specialized court's interim relief mechanism, which the applicant failed to exhaust.
Generato dall'IA
1 BvQ 14/20
Interim constitutional relief: Subsidiarity to specialized court urgent protection and lack of substantive admissibility of main action
1 BvR 1755/19
Interim relief in constitutional complaints: Subsidiarity of § 32 BVerfGG to specialized court emergency remedies
2 BvQ 16/16
Subsidiarity of constitutional interim relief: Requirement to exhaust specialized court appeals before seeking BVerfG order
1 BvQ 91/20
Constitutional interim relief in eviction proceedings: failure to exhaust specialized court emergency remedies defeats subsidiarity requirement
1 BvQ 13/17
Constitutional interim relief denied for failure to exhaust specialized social court remedies under subsidiarity doctrine

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG

The main ground for dismissing the request for interim relief due to the absence of necessary legal prerequisites.

§ 114 Abs. 2 S. 2 StVollzG

The procedural rule defining the mandatory prior resort to the specialized court's interim relief mechanism, which the applicant failed to exhaust.

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: Subsidiarität des verfassungsrechtlichen Eilrechtsschutzes gegenüber fachgerichtlichen Eilrechtsbehelfen (hier: § 114 Abs 2 S 2 StVollzG)

[GRUENDE]

Die Voraussetzungen für den Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung nach § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG liegen nicht vor.

Der Grundsatz der Subsidiarität der Verfassungsbeschwerde gilt auch für den vorgelagerten verfassungsrechtlichen Eilrechtsschutz (vgl. BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 30. Dezember 2002 - 2 BvQ 59/02 -, juris; BVerfG, Beschluss der 3. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 9. Dezember 2009 - 2 BvQ 84/09 -, juris; BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 30. Juli 2014 - 2 BvQ 26/14 -, juris; stRspr). Der Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung im Rahmen eines Verfassungsbeschwerdeverfahrens oder in dessen Vorfeld kommt daher nur in Betracht, wenn der Antragsteller bestehende Möglichkeiten, fachgerichtlichen Eilrechtsschutz zu erlangen, ausgeschöpft hat.

An entsprechenden Darlegungen des Antragstellers fehlt es hier. Insbesondere ist nicht ersichtlich, dass der Antragsteller sich bei der zuständigen Strafvollstreckungskammer um den Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung nach § 114 Abs. 2 Satz 2 StVollzG bemüht hätte. Es liegen auch keine hinreichenden Anhaltspunkte dafür vor, dass die Ausschöpfung des fachgerichtlichen Eilrechtsschutzes ausnahmsweise unzumutbar sein könnte. Der Vortrag des Antragstellers, wonach die Strafvollstreckungskammer ihm gegenüber eine "negative Einstellung" aufweise und sich Entscheidungen der Justizvollzugsanstalt zu Vollzugslockerungen bisher "nicht widersetzt" habe, genügt insoweit nicht.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.