Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 415/18, 2 BvR 420/18, 2 BvR 442/18, 2 BvR 443/18, 2 BvR 452/18, 2 BvR 453/18, 2 BvR 507/18, 2 BvR 508/18, 2 BvR 517/18, 2 BvR 518/18, 2 BvR 527/18, 2 BvR 528/18, 2 BvR 545/18, 2 BvR 546/18, 2 BvR 580/18, 2 BvR 581/18, 2 BvR 590/18, 2 BvR 591/18, 2 BvR 600/18, 2 BvR 623/18, 2 BvR 624/18 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2018:rk20180412.2bvr041518 Generato dall'IA

Inadmissibility of unsubstantiated constitutional complaints and abuse-of-process penalties

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 415/18, 2 BvR 420/18, 2 BvR 442/18, 2 BvR 443/18, 2 BvR 452/18, 2 BvR 453/18, 2 BvR 507/18, 2 BvR 508/18, 2 BvR 517/18, 2 BvR 518/18, 2 BvR 527/18, 2 BvR 528/18, 2 BvR 545/18, 2 BvR 546/18, 2 BvR 580/18, 2 BvR 581/18, 2 BvR 590/18, 2 BvR 591/18, 2 BvR 600/18, 2 BvR 623/18, 2 BvR 624/18
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 (Second Senate, Second Chamber) issued a non-acceptance decision, refusing to hear the cases and denying applications for legal aid and the appointment of counsel as the intended legal action lacked sufficient prospects of success. The dispute involved a petitioner’s attempts to file constitutional complaints that were deemed inadmissible for failing to meet the statutory requirements for a substantiated legal argument, specifically lacking the necessary detail and logical structure required for judicial review. The decisive legal basis included the provisions for non-acceptance due to the absence of grounds for admission under § 93a(2) of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG) and the specific substantive deficiencies outlined in §§ 23(1) sentence 2 and 92 BVerfGG. Additionally, the Court explicitly warned that filing recognizably unsubstantiated complaints may constitute abuse of legal remedies under § 34(2) BVerfGG, thereby subjecting the petitioner to a penalty for abuse in future proceedings.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 92 BVerfGG, § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG; Inadmissibility of unsubstantiated constitutional complaints and abuse-of-process penalties: The dispute involved a petitioner’s attempts to file constitutional complaints that were deemed inadmissible for failing to meet the statutory requirements for a substantiated legal argument, specifically lacking the necessary detail and logical structure required for judicial review. The decisive legal basis included the provisions for non-acceptance due to the absence of grounds for admission under § 93a(2) of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG) and the specific substantive deficiencies outlined in §§ 23(1) sentence 2 and 92 BVerfGG. Additionally, the Court explicitly warned that filing recognizably unsubstantiated complaints may constitute abuse of legal remedies under § 34(2) BVerfGG, thereby subjecting the petitioner to a penalty for abuse in future proceedings.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali abuso del processo presupposti legali sindacato giurisdizionale carenza dei requisiti materiali motivo di revisione

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG
Ground for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaints due to the absence of statutory grounds for admission.
§ 92 BVerfGG
1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG nicht substantiiert begründet sind (vgl.
§ 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG
Der Beschwerdeführer wird für künftige Verfahren darauf hingewiesen, dass ihm bei Vorliegen der Voraussetzungen des § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG eine Missbrauchsgebühr auferlegt werden kann.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Provision allowing the court to omit further reasoning in the dispositive.
§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG
Procedural requirements cited to establish the inadmissibility of the complaints for lack of sufficient substantiation.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 81, 208
BVerfGE 81, 208 ; 99, 84 ; stRspr).
1 BvR 690/10
Constitutional complaints against legislative inaction on post-war expropriation rehabilitation deemed inadmissible for lack of substantiation and abuse of proceedings
1 BvR 901/10
Constitutional complaints against legislative inaction on post-war expropriation rehabilitation deemed inadmissible for lack of substantiation and abuse of proceedings
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 269/21, 2 BvR 423/21, 2 BvR 424/21, 2 BvR 604/21
Inadmissibility of unsubstantiated constitutional complaints and potential imposition of abuse fees
2 BvR 263/21, 2 BvR 276/21, 2 BvR 284/21, 2 BvR 304/21
Inadmissible constitutional complaint: non-substantiation of rights violation and risk of abuse fee
2 BvR 1598/19
Inadmissibility of unsubstantiated constitutional complaint and warning of abuse penalty fees.
2 BvR 580/21
Constitutional complaint for lack of sufficient substantiation; non-acceptance and warning of abuse penalty
2 BvR 1683/21
Unsubstantiated constitutional complaint inadmissible; warning on potential misuse fee for frivolous filings

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Ground for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaints due to the absence of statutory grounds for admission.

§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG

Procedural requirements cited to establish the inadmissibility of the complaints for lack of sufficient substantiation.

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Provision allowing the court to omit further reasoning in the dispositive.

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 mehrerer unzureichend substantiierter Verfassungsbeschwerden - Hinweis auf Möglichkeit der Verhängung einer Missbrauchsgebühr bei Erhebung erkennbar substanzloser Verfassungsbeschwerden

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerden werden zur gemeinsamen Entscheidung verbunden.

Die Anträge auf Bewilligung von Prozesskostenhilfe und Beiordnung eines Rechtsanwalts werden abgelehnt, weil die beabsichtigte Rechtsverfolgung keine hinreichende Aussicht auf Erfolg bietet.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerden werden nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Die - zur gemeinsamen Entscheidung verbundenen - Verfassungsbeschwerden sind nicht zur Entscheidung anzunehmen, da Annahmegründe gemäß § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG nicht gegeben sind. Die Verfassungsbeschwerden sind bereits unzulässig, weil sie entgegen den Anforderungen aus § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG nicht substantiiert begründet sind (vgl. BVerfGE 81, 208 ; 99, 84 ; stRspr).

Der Beschwerdeführer wird für künftige Verfahren darauf hingewiesen, dass ihm bei Vorliegen der Voraussetzungen des § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG eine Missbrauchsgebühr auferlegt werden kann. Ein Missbrauch kann auch vorliegen, wenn das Bundesverfassungsgericht durch für jedermann erkennbar substanzlose Verfassungsbeschwerden an der Erfüllung seiner Aufgaben gehindert wird, wodurch anderen Rechtsuchenden der ihnen zukommende Grundrechtsschutz nur verzögert gewährt werden kann (vgl. BVerfG, Beschluss der 1. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 25. Mai 2010 - 1 BvR 690/10, 1 BvR 901/10 -, juris, Rn. 5).

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.