Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 3165/15 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2019:rk20190114.1bvr316515 Generato dall'IA

Lack of interest in setting subject-matter value exceeding statutory minimum after non-acceptance of constitutional complaint

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 3165/15
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 dismissed the applicant's motion to set the subject-matter value, ruling it inadmissible and leaving the statutory minimum value for legal fee calculation in force. The dispute arose in a constitutional complaint procedure where the applicant sought a subject-matter value exceeding the statutory minimum, following the non-acceptance of their constitutional complaint for decision on the merits. The Court held that a judicial review of the subject-matter value is not required (*Rechtsschutzbedürfnis*) when a constitutional complaint is not admitted, as there is no substantive ruling on the merits to which value-based fees are tied; consequently, the statutory minimum value of €5,000 under § 37 Abs. 2 Satz 2 of the Lawyers' Remuneration Act (RVG) remains applicable, and no exception to this general rule was found.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 37 Abs. 2 Satz 2 RVG; Lack of interest in setting subject-matter value exceeding statutory minimum after non-acceptance of constitutional complaint: The dispute arose in a constitutional complaint procedure where the applicant sought a subject-matter value exceeding the statutory minimum, following the non-acceptance of their constitutional complaint for decision on the merits. The Court held that a judicial review of the subject-matter value is not required (*Rechtsschutzbedürfnis*) when a constitutional complaint is not admitted, as there is no substantive ruling on the merits to which value-based fees are tied; consequently, the statutory minimum value of €5,000 under § 37 Abs. 2 Satz 2 of the Lawyers' Remuneration Act (RVG) remains applicable, and no exception to this general rule was found.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
oggetto della lite spese legali sindacato giurisdizionale motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali regolamento interno esame nel merito

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 37 Abs. 2 Satz 2 RVG
Determined the statutory minimum subject-matter value of €5,000 applicable to the calculation of attorney fees in the absence of a need for judicial review.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 79, 365
BVerfGE 79, 365 ; BVerfG, Beschluss der 1.
1 BvR 443/16
Subject matter value fixation in constitutional complaints: lack of legal interest when the complaint is not accepted for decision
1 BvR 206/08
April 2008 - 1 BvR 206/08 -, juris, Rn.
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 1179/08
Fixing subject matter value in constitutional complaints: lack of legal interest to exceed statutory minimum where complaint not accepted for decision
1 BvR 461/17
Inadmissibility of application for subject-matter value fixation above statutory minimum following non-acceptance of constitutional complaint
1 BvR 2321/20
Judicial fixation of subject matter value exceeding statutory minimum in constitutional complaint proceedings denied for lack of legal interest
2 BvR 44/21
Discretionary subject-matter value in constitutional complaint proceedings: lack of legal interest where complaint not admitted and no exceptional grounds exceed the statutory minimum.
1 BvR 1032/21
Subject-matter value in constitutional complaint proceedings: lack of legal interest when complaint not accepted for decision

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 37 Abs. 2 Satz 2 RVG

Determined the statutory minimum subject-matter value of €5,000 applicable to the calculation of attorney fees in the absence of a need for judicial review.

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

Verwerfung eines Antrags auf Gegenstandswertfestsetzung im Verfassungsbeschwerdeverfahren: kein Rechtsschutzbedürfnis für Gegenstandswertfestsetzung bei Nichtannahme der Verfassungsbeschwerde

[TENOR]

Der Antrag auf Festsetzung des Gegenstandswerts wird verworfen.

[GRUENDE]

Der Antrag, welcher als Antrag auf Festsetzung des Gegenstandswertes für das Verfassungsbeschwerdeverfahren zu verstehen ist, ist unzulässig. Für die Berechnung der Rechtsanwaltsgebühren ist hier der gesetzliche Mindestwert nach § 37 Abs. 2 Satz 2 RVG in Höhe von 5.000 € maßgebend. Für die Festsetzung eines darüber hinausgehenden Wertes ist ein Rechtsschutzbedürfnis weder dargetan noch erkennbar.

Wird eine Verfassungsbeschwerde wie hier nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen, über sie also nicht inhaltlich befunden, ist es im Regelfall nicht gerechtfertigt, über den gesetzlichen Mindestwert hinauszugehen. In diesen Fällen besteht kein Rechtsschutzbedürfnis für die Festsetzung des Gegenstandswertes (vgl. BVerfGE 79, 365 ; BVerfG, Beschluss der 1. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 28. Juli 2016 - 1 BvR 443/16 -, juris, Rn. 4; Beschluss der 3. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 24. April 2008 - 1 BvR 206/08 -, juris, Rn. 7). Der vorliegende Fall bietet keinen Anlass, von dieser Regel abzuweichen.