Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 199/16 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2016:rk20160209.2bvr019916 Generato dall'IA

Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint for failure to file hearing objection in criminal enforcement proceedings

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 199/16
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 declined to accept the constitutional complaint, leaving the regional court's contested decision in force and ruling against the complainant. The dispute concerned a procedural violation in a criminal enforcement case, where the complainant alleged that the lower court had relied on a statement from a correctional institution without disclosing it to them, thereby infringing on their right to be heard. The Court dismissed the complaint on the grounds of material subsidiarity, holding that the complaint was inadmissible because the complainant failed to exhaust available procedural remedies by filing a hearing objection (Anhörungsrüge) against the lower court's decision. The decisive legal basis was the doctrine of material subsidiarity derived from Article 90(2) Sentence 1 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, which requires the exhaustion of all specific procedural means, specifically the hearing objection under § 120(1) Sentence 2 of the Prison Act and § 33a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before a constitutional complaint is admissible.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 90 Abs. 2 Satz 1 BVerfGG, § 33a StPO, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint for failure to file hearing objection in criminal enforcement proceedings: The dispute concerned a procedural violation in a criminal enforcement case, where the complainant alleged that the lower court had relied on a statement from a correctional institution without disclosing it to them, thereby infringing on their right to be heard. The Court dismissed the complaint on the grounds of material subsidiarity, holding that the complaint was inadmissible because the complainant failed to exhaust available procedural remedies by filing a hearing objection (Anhörungsrüge) against the lower court's decision. The decisive legal basis was the doctrine of material subsidiarity derived from Article 90(2) Sentence 1 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, which requires the exhaustion of all specific procedural means, specifically the hearing objection under § 120(1) Sentence 2 of the Prison Act and § 33a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before a constitutional complaint is admissible.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
diritto di essere sentito violazione dei diritti procedurali presentazione di denunce penali motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali decisione d'esecuzione dottrina giuridica

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG
Main ground for the decision not to accept the constitutional complaint due to lack of prospect of success.
§ 90 Abs. 2 Satz 1 BVerfGG
§ 33a StPO
1 Satz 2 StVollzG, § 33a StPO offen.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural basis for omitting a further reasoning in the decision.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 107, 395
BVerfGE 107, 395 ; 112, 50 ; 129, 78 ; 134, 106 ; stRspr).
2 BvR 960/11
Calculating the readmission deadline under § 45 StPO from the removal of the hindrance rather than knowledge of the missed deadline; violation of the right to be heard by denying access to opposing party’s submission.
2 BvR 2076/08
Withholding opposing party's written statement in appellate proceedings violates the right to be heard despite no impact on substantive outcome
2 BvR 1432/11
Hearing rights violation via non-disclosure of opposing statements; lack of decisional relevance in constitutional complaint
2 BvR 885/13
Constitutional complaint against provisional detention: inadmissibility due to failure to prove timely filing date after hearing request decision.
2 BvR 1245/15
Prison disciplinary measure based on unadjudicated offense; constitutional complaint inadmissible for failure to file hearing objection
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 2592/14
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint for failure to file a hearing objection to a right-to-be-heard violation
2 BvR 2474/15
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint due to failure to file a hearing objection in prison execution proceedings
2 BvR 45/11
Constitutional complaint inadmissible for failure to file mandatory hearing denial complaint under material subsidiarity
2 BvR 2169/13, 2 BvR 2170/13
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint for failure to file a hearing complaint against ignored EMRK arguments
2 BvR 2087/15
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint for failure to file hearing objection under § 33a StPO

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Main ground for the decision not to accept the constitutional complaint due to lack of prospect of success.

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Procedural basis for omitting a further reasoning in 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: Subsidiarität der Verfassungsbeschwerde bei Statthaftigkeit einer Anhörungsrüge gem §§ 120 Abs 1 S 2 StVollzG, 33a StPO im fachgerichtlichen Verfahren

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist nicht zur Entscheidung anzunehmen, da sie keine Aussicht auf Erfolg hat (vgl. § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG).

Sie ist aus Gründen der materiellen Subsidiarität unzulässig, weil der Beschwerdeführer gegen den Beschluss des Landgerichts keine Anhörungsrüge erhoben hat. Der aus § 90 Abs. 2 Satz 1 BVerfGG abgeleitete Grundsatz der materiellen Subsidiarität gebietet, dass der Beschwerdeführer den Rechtsweg nicht lediglich formell erschöpft, sondern darüber hinaus auch alle nach Lage der Sache zur Verfügung stehenden prozessualen Möglichkeiten ergreift, um die geltend gemachte Grundrechtsverletzung in dem unmittelbar mit ihr zusammenhängenden sachnächsten Verfahren zu verhindern oder zu beseitigen (vgl. BVerfGE 107, 395 ; 112, 50 ; 129, 78 ; 134, 106 ; stRspr).

Das Landgericht hat dem Beschwerdeführer nach dessen Vortrag die Stellungnahme der Justizvollzugsanstalt, auf die sich die angegriffene Entscheidung stützt, vor Erlass des angegriffenen Beschlusses nicht zugänglich gemacht. Gegen den darin liegenden Gehörsverstoß (vgl. BVerfGK 7, 438 ; BVerfG, Beschluss der 3. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 6. Juni 2011 - 2 BvR 960/11 -, juris, Rn. 4 f.; BVerfG, Beschluss der 3. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 6. Juni 2011 - 2 BvR 2076/08 -, juris, Rn. 3; BVerfG, Beschluss der 3. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 24.

Oktober 2012 - 2 BvR 1432/11 -, juris, Rn. 3; BVerfG, Beschluss der 3. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 30. Mai 2013 - 2 BvR 885/13 -, juris, Rn. 4; BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 17. Juli 2015 - 2 BvR 1245/15 -, juris, Rn. 5; BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 25. August 2015 - 2 BvR 1554/15 -, juris, Rn. 3; BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 20. November 2015 - 2 BvR 2087/15 -, juris, Rn. 3; BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 11. Januar 2016 - 2 BvR 2474/15 -, juris, Rn.

3) steht dem Beschwerdeführer die Anhörungsrüge nach § 120 Abs. 1 Satz 2 StVollzG, § 33a StPO offen.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.