Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 2280/11 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2011:rk20111206.2bvr228011 Generato dall'IA

Misuse fee for repetitive constitutional complaint citing § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 2280/11
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Inammissibile (Inadmissible)
Spese processuali a carico del ricorrente / reclamante
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Constitutional Court refused to accept the constitutional complaint for decision and imposed a €1,000 misuse fee on the complainant, effectively upholding the lower court's procedural rejection. The dispute involved a self-representing attorney filing a new complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard, which merely repeated arguments from a prior non-accepted complaint that had already deemed the underlying claims hopeless. The decisive legal basis was § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG, under which the court ordered the fee because the complainant's near-verbatim repetition of previously rejected arguments constituted an intolerable claim on the court's resources, demonstrating that the complainant should have recognized the futility of their claims following the earlier non-acceptance.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG; Misuse fee for repetitive constitutional complaint citing § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG: The dispute involved a self-representing attorney filing a new complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard, which merely repeated arguments from a prior non-accepted complaint that had already deemed the underlying claims hopeless. The decisive legal basis was § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG, under which the court ordered the fee because the complainant's near-verbatim repetition of previously rejected arguments constituted an intolerable claim on the court's resources, demonstrating that the complainant should have recognized the futility of their claims following the earlier non-acceptance.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
abuso di diritto abuso del processo motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali diritto di essere sentito insinuazione del credito nuove allegazioni di diritto

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG
Cited in the dispositive to impose a misuse fee on the complainant for filing an appeal based on hopeless arguments.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 1843/11
Non-admission of constitutional complaint challenging lower court ruling
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 1064/11
Penalty fee for verbatim repetition of previously rejected constitutional complaint substantiation under § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG
1 BvR 373/17
Abuse fee for repetitive, unsubstantiated constitutional complaints with identical arguments in similar cases
2 BvR 1627/21
Misuse fee imposed for manifestly unsubstantiated constitutional complaint lacking independent legal argument
1 BvR 1504/23
Abuse fee for repeated manifestly inadmissible constitutional complaints lacking mandatory individualized reasoning
2 BvR 2978/10
BVerfGG misuse fee for insulting constitutional complaint lacking substantive legal basis

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Cited in the dispositive to impose a misuse fee on the complainant for filing an appeal based on hopeless arguments.

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 ohne Begründung - Auferlegung einer Missbrauchsgebühr bei nahezu wortgleicher Wiederholung einer nicht zur Entscheidung angenommenen, mithin auf offenkundig aussichtslosem Vorbringen beruhenden Verfassungsbeschwerde durch einen in eigener Sache tätigen Rechtsanwalt

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

Dem Beschwerdeführer wird gemäß § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG eine Missbrauchsgebühr in der angemessen erscheinenden Höhe von 1.000 € (in Worten: eintausend Euro) auferlegt, weil er den nunmehr geltend gemachten Gehörsverstoß allein unter weitgehend wortgleicher Wiederholung seiner Ausführungen in der mit Beschluss vom 14. September 2011 nicht zur Entscheidung angenommenen Verfassungsbeschwerde - 2 BvR 1843/11 - zu begründen sucht, obwohl ihm spätestens aufgrund der Nichtannahme die Aussichtslosigkeit seines Vorbringens hätte deutlich werden müssen; mit der Wiederholung des offensichtlich aussichtslosen Vorbringens beansprucht der Beschwerdeführer die Arbeitskapazität des Bundesverfassungsgerichts in nicht hinzunehmender Weise (vgl. BVerfGK 6, 219; 10, 94 ; 14, 468 ).

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.