Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 131/14 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2014:rk20140408.1bvr013114 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional complaint as private action: requirement of personal, current, and immediate impact in challenges to state inaction regarding care home residents' protective claims

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 131/14
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 German Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the constitutional complaint, finding that the appellant prevailed no relief as no grounds for acceptance under § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG existed. The dispute concerned a challenge to the state's extensive inactivity in fulfilling its protective duties toward residents of care homes, which the appellant alleged violated constitutional rights. The Court held that a constitutional complaint is a procedural remedy exclusively for defending one's own subjective rights and does not function as a "Popularklage" (citizen's action) to challenge general state failures; therefore, the complaint was inadmissible because the appellant failed to demonstrate that they were personally, currently, and immediately affected by the public authority in question.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Constitutional complaint as private action: requirement of personal, current, and immediate impact in challenges to state inaction regarding care home residents' protective claims: 2 BVerfGG existed. The dispute concerned a challenge to the state's extensive inactivity in fulfilling its protective duties toward residents of care homes, which the appellant alleged violated constitutional rights. The Court held that a constitutional complaint is a procedural remedy exclusively for defending one's own subjective rights and does not function as a "Popularklage" (citizen's action) to challenge general state failures; therefore, the complaint was inadmissible because the appellant failed to demonstrate that they were personally, currently, and immediately affected by the public authority in question.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
dovere di diligenza requisito costituzionale diritti procedurali diritto di manifestare ricorso costituzionale all'estero diritti degli anziani

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG
Cited as the procedural criterion determining that the constitutional complaint lacks the necessary grounds for acceptance.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Cited to justify the omission of a detailed legal reasoning in the operative part of the decision.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 15, 298
BVerfGE 15, 298 ; 43, 142 ).
BVerfGE 49, 1
BVerfGE 49, 1 ; 64, 301 ).
BVerfGE 53, 30
BVerfGE 53, 30 ; 79, 1 ; 102, 197 ; 123, 267 ).
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 2980/14
Constitutional complaint alleging state breach of care-quality protection duties for nursing home residents rejected for insufficient substantiation of legislative inaction and lack of immediate personal standing
2 BvR 2255/22
Visitation rights of a daughter in a nursing home: constitutional review of civil refusal and inadmissibility due to unexhausted guardianship remedies
1 BvR 3046/11
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint challenging pension reform levies for insufficient substantive grounding of property and professional freedom claims
1 BvR 1517/16
Constitutional complaint over scope of legal aid covering pension objection proceedings; inadmissibility due to lack of fundamental rights violation
1 BvR 2210/21
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint due to loss of legal interest after guardian change; cost reimbursement despite procedural dismissal

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Cited as the procedural criterion determining that the constitutional complaint lacks the necessary grounds for acceptance.

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Cited to justify the omission of a detailed legal reasoning in the operative part of 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: Verfassungsbeschwerde kann nicht als "Popularklage" erhoben werden - Zulässigkeit setzt eigene, gegenwärtige und unmittelbare Betroffenheit des Beschwerdeführers voraus - hier: Beschwerde gegen Verletzung staatlicher Schutzpflichten durch "weitgehende Untätigkeit" bzgl Bewohnern von Pflegeheimen

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist nicht zur Entscheidung anzunehmen. Annahmegründe im Sinne von § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG liegen nicht vor.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist ein Rechtsbehelf zur Verteidigung eigener subjektiver Rechte (vgl. BVerfGE 15, 298 ; 43, 142 ). Weder das Grundgesetz noch das Gesetz über das Bundesverfassungsgericht kennen eine "Popularklage" des Bürgers (vgl. BVerfGE 49, 1 ; 64, 301 ). Zur Zulässigkeit einer Verfassungsbeschwerde gehört vielmehr die schlüssige Behauptung des Beschwerdeführers, dass er selbst, gegenwärtig und unmittelbar durch die öffentliche Gewalt in seinen grundrechtlich geschützten Positionen verletzt ist (vgl. BVerfGE 53, 30 ; 79, 1 ; 102, 197 ; 123, 267 ). Hierzu trägt der Beschwerdeführer nicht einmal ansatzweise vor.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.