Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 1517/16 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2016:rk20161107.1bvr151716 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional complaint over scope of legal aid covering pension objection proceedings; inadmissibility due to lack of fundamental rights violation

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 1517/16
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 for decision, leaving the lower courts' rulings in force and effectively denying the petitioner relief. The dispute concerned a denial of renewed legal aid (Beratungshilfe), with the petitioner challenging an Amtsgericht Bayreuth decision that upheld the scope of previously granted legal aid to cover both the initial review of her statutory old-age pension and the subsequent objection procedure. The Court determined the complaint was inadmissible because the challenged decisions did not impair the petitioner's fundamental rights; instead, they confirmed her access to legal assistance for the objection process, meaning no apparent violation of basic rights existed. The decision relied on the doctrine of inadmissibility where the absence of a fundamental rights violation is evident, and no further reasoning was provided pursuant to § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Constitutional complaint over scope of legal aid covering pension objection proceedings; inadmissibility due to lack of fundamental rights violation: The dispute concerned a denial of renewed legal aid (Beratungshilfe), with the petitioner challenging an Amtsgericht Bayreuth decision that upheld the scope of previously granted legal aid to cover both the initial review of her statutory old-age pension and the subsequent objection procedure. The Court determined the complaint was inadmissible because the challenged decisions did not impair the petitioner's fundamental rights; instead, they confirmed her access to legal assistance for the objection process, meaning no apparent violation of basic rights existed. The decision relied on the doctrine of inadmissibility where the absence of a fundamental rights violation is evident, and no further reasoning was provided pursuant to § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
diritti a pensione procedura di gratuito patrocinio diritti fondamentali diritto legale motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali procedimento di controllo degli aiuti

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Cited in the dispositive to justify omitting further reasoning for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 3046/11
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint challenging pension reform levies for insufficient substantive grounding of property and professional freedom claims
1 BvR 612/10
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint over denial of legal aid for SGB III review where § 330 Abs. 1 Alt. 1 retroactivity excludes BSG case law on Alt. 2
1 BvR 256/23
Constitutional complaint against denial of legal aid; missed filing deadline due to prior appeals being obviously inadmissible
1 BvR 1883/17
Constitutional complaint on effective legal protection regarding supplementary pension scheme administration
1 BvR 1122/13
Unsubstantiated constitutional complaint challenging statutory pension adequacy: failure to prove property rights violation or unlawful inequality with private pension systems

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Cited in the dispositive to justify omitting further reasoning for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.

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: offensichtliches Fehlen einer Grundrechtsverletzung bei Bestätigung der Rechtsauffassung des Beschwerdeführers durch angegriffene Beschlüsse - Unzulässigkeit der Verfassungsbeschwerde

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist unzulässig, weil die Beschwerdeführerin durch die antragsabweisenden Beschlüsse des Amtsgerichts Bayreuth offensichtlich nicht in ihren Grundrechten verletzt sein kann. Das Amtsgericht hat den erneuten Antrag auf Beratungshilfe abgewiesen, weil nach seiner Rechtsauffassung die bereits gewährte Beratungshilfe zur Überprüfung ihrer Regelaltersrente neben der Stellung des Antrags auf Überprüfung auch das Widerspruchsverfahren umfasst. Damit ist ihr im Streitfall auch die anwaltliche Beratung für den Widerspruch gesichert. Die beiden angegriffenen Beschlüsse des Amtsgerichts Bayreuth belasten die Beschwerdeführerin nicht; sie bestätigen im Gegenteil die von ihr gewünschte Beratungshilfe als bereits gewährt.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.