Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 1933/08 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2011:rk20111221.1bvr193308 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional complaint on waiving independent justification in parallel decisions under § 93d BVerfGG

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 1933/08
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 dismissed the constitutional complaint, rendering the decision final and unappealable. The case involved a challenge to a constitutional matter where the petitioner claimed applicability of a parallel decision. The Court based its ruling on the doctrine of parallel decisions (Parallelentscheidungen), referencing the reasons provided in a concurrent order from the same Chamber issued on December 8, 2011. Under § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, the Court waived providing an independent substantive justification, relying instead on the cited precedent to resolve the dispute.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Constitutional complaint on waiving independent justification in parallel decisions under § 93d BVerfGG: The case involved a challenge to a constitutional matter where the petitioner claimed applicability of a parallel decision. The Court based its ruling on the doctrine of parallel decisions (Parallelentscheidungen), referencing the reasons provided in a concurrent order from the same Chamber issued on December 8, 2011. Under § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, the Court waived providing an independent substantive justification, relying instead on the cited precedent to resolve the dispute.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
fondatezza materiale oggetto della lite motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali motivazione del mutamento giurisprudenza unità della procedura uguaglianza giuridica costituzionale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural rule permitting the court to waive a further independent legal justification by referencing a parallel decision.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 1932/08
Scope of judicial review over regulatory agency’s market definition and discretion in telecom market regulation
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 2846/19
Constitutional complaint on parallel proceedings; denial of admission under § 93d BVerfGG
1 BvR 1390/11
Constitutional complaint: Non-acceptance due to parallel decision, waiving justification under § 93d BVerfGG
1 BvR 1234/11
Non-acceptance of constitutional complaint based on parallel decision and waiver of further reasoning under § 93d Abs. 1 BVerfGG
1 BvR 1319/20
Constitutional complaint rejected as parallel decision: dispensation with reasoning based on identical prior rulings under § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
1 BvR 1403/11
Constitutional complaint non-acceptance via parallel decision citing § 93d BVerfGG

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Procedural rule permitting the court to waive a further independent legal justification by referencing a parallel 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: Parallelentscheidung

[GRUENDE]

Zur Begründung wird auf die im vorliegenden Verfahren ebenfalls Geltung beanspruchenden Ausführungen im Beschluss der 1. Kammer des Ersten Senats des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom 8. Dezember 2011 im Verfahren 1 BvR 1932/08 (www.bverfg.de) verwiesen.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.