Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 2385/17 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2017:rk20171127.1bvr238517 Generato dall'IA

Denial of representative admission for failure to prove objective usefulness and subjective necessity in constitutional complaint proceedings

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 2385/17
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 admit a constitutional complaint and rejected the applicant's motion to admit a representative, finding the application procedurally and substantively deficient. The dispute involved an attempt to have an individual admitted as a legal representative under Section 22(1) sentence 4 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), which the Court denied because the applicant failed to demonstrate the objective usefulness or subjective necessity of such representation, nor explain why representation by a standard attorney or recognized representative was unreasonably burdensome. Relying on Section 93d(1) sentence 3 BVerfGG, the Court decided not to provide a detailed written reasoning, leaving the underlying constitutional complaint unexamined and the decision final.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 22 Abs. 1 Satz 4 BVerfGG, § 22 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 S. 3 BVerfGG; Denial of representative admission for failure to prove objective usefulness and subjective necessity in constitutional complaint proceedings: The dispute involved an attempt to have an individual admitted as a legal representative under Section 22(1) sentence 4 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), which the Court denied because the applicant failed to demonstrate the objective usefulness or subjective necessity of such representation, nor explain why representation by a standard attorney or recognized representative was unreasonably burdensome. Relying on Section 93d(1) sentence 3 BVerfGG, the Court decided not to provide a detailed written reasoning, leaving the underlying constitutional complaint unexamined and the decision final.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali rappresentanza legale facoltà di astenersi dal testimoniare eccezioni processuali decisione motivata difetto di motivazione

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 22 Abs. 1 Satz 4 BVerfGG
§ 22 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG
Die Beschwerdeführerin legt nicht dar, warum es ihr unzumutbar sein sollte, sich durch eine der in § 22 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG genannten Personen vertreten zu lassen.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Von einer weiteren Begründung wird nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.
§ 93d Abs. 1 S. 3 BVerfGG
Procedural basis for omitting the further reasoning in the dispositive of the non-acceptance decision.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 68, 360
hierzu BVerfGE 68, 360 ; BVerfGK 13, 171 ).
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 2244/20
Admission of non-attorney representative in constitutional complaint; rejection for lack of subjective necessity
1 BvR 1580/25
Admission of legal representative in constitutional complaint: insufficient demonstration of legal qualification
2 BvR 760/23
Admission of non-lawyer as representative in constitutional proceedings: subjective necessity requirement under § 22 BVerfGG
2 BvR 1019/21
Constitutional complaint non-admission without reasoning and denial of auxiliary counsel request
1 BvR 690/20
Refusal of constitutional complaint and denial of associate counsel admission for lack of demonstrated necessity under § 22 BVerfGG

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Procedural basis for omitting the further reasoning in the dispositive of the non-acceptance 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

Nichtannahme einer Verfassungsbeschwerde ohne Begründung (§ 93d Abs 1 S 3 BVerfGG) - Ablehnung der Zulassung eines Beistandes (§ 22 Abs 1 S 4 BVerfGG) mangels Darlegung der objektiven Sachdienlichkeit und subjektiven Notwendigkeit

[TENOR]

Der Antrag auf Zulassung von Herrn G… als Beistand wird abgelehnt.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Der dem Vorbringen der Beschwerdeführerin zu entnehmende Antrag auf Zulassung des Herrn G… als Beistand nach § 22 Abs. 1 Satz 4 BVerfGG ist abzulehnen, weil weder vorgetragen noch ersichtlich ist, dass die in das pflichtgemäße Ermessen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts gestellte Zulassung objektiv sachdienlich und subjektiv notwendig ist (vgl. hierzu BVerfGE 68, 360 ; BVerfGK 13, 171 ). Die Beschwerdeführerin legt nicht dar, warum es ihr unzumutbar sein sollte, sich durch eine der in § 22 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG genannten Personen vertreten zu lassen.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.