Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 1935/17 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2018:rk20180509.1bvr193517 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional complaint alleging violation of right to effective judicial protection due to parallel proceedings

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 1935/17
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 refused to accept the constitutional complaint for decision, effectively leaving the challenged lower court decisions in force. The dispute concerned a parallel procedural matter where the complainant alleged a violation of the right to effective legal protection by state courts. The court determined that no such constitutional violation was discernible and, in accordance with § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, abstained from further reasoning by referring to a decision issued on the same day in a related case.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Constitutional complaint alleging violation of right to effective judicial protection due to parallel proceedings: Die angegriffenen Entscheidungen sind verfassungsrechtlich nicht zu beanstanden. Insbesondere ist eine Verletzung des Anspruchs auf effektiven Rechtsschutz durch staatliche Gerichte (Art. 2 Abs. 1 i.V.m. Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG) nicht zu erkennen.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
violazione dei diritti procedurali motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali oggetto della lite diritto processuale tutela legale concorso di diritti fondamentali

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG
Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG) nicht zu erkennen.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Im Übrigen wird von einer Begründung nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 1884/17
Public service supplementary pension transitional rules: Effectiveness of judicial protection versus collective bargaining discretion and alleged gender-based discrimination in retirement calculation
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 162/18
Constitutional complaint against parallel judicial decisions challenging right to effective legal protection (Art. 2(1) in conjunction with Art. 20(3) GG)
1 BvR 1819/15
Constitutional complaint against a parallel court decision declared inadmissible
1 BvR 216/18
Constitutional complaint challenging refusal of effective legal remedy
1 BvR 2494/09, 1 BvR 1257/10
Constitutional complaint: No credible indication of fundamental rights violation in lower court decision
1 BvR 1484/23
Constitutional admissibility of challenges to state constitutional court rulings: failure to substantiate violation of federal right to effective legal protection

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: Parallelentscheidung

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Die angegriffenen Entscheidungen sind verfassungsrechtlich nicht zu beanstanden. Insbesondere ist eine Verletzung des Anspruchs auf effektiven Rechtsschutz durch staatliche Gerichte (Art. 2 Abs. 1 i.V.m. Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG) nicht zu erkennen.

Zur weiteren Begründung wird auf den Beschluss im Verfahren 1 BvR 1884/17 vom heutigen Tag verwiesen. Im Übrigen wird von einer Begründung nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.