Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 229/19 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2019:rk20190218.2bvr022919 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional complaint inadmissible for failure to exhaust recusal remedies in criminal proceedings

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 229/19
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 (Second Senate, Second Chamber) denied the constitutional complaint without accepting it for decision, ruling that the applicant had failed to exhaust available ordinary legal remedies regarding decisions on the recusal of a judge in criminal proceedings. The applicant challenged the Higher Regional Court's rulings rejecting their applications for recusal based on suspected bias against a district judge, seeking a constitutional review prior to the final decision on the merits of the underlying criminal case. The Court held that such recusal decisions are ancillary to the main judgment and cannot be challenged in isolation via constitutional complaint; instead, they must be appealed jointly with the final decision on the merits through ordinary criminal procedure, specifically allowing a later revision based on the absolute ground for appeal regarding judicial bias under § 338 No. 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), thereby requiring the exhaustion of § 28 Para. 2 Sentence 2 StPO before constitutional review is admissible.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 28 Abs. 2 Satz 2 StPO, § 338 Nr. 3 StPO, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Constitutional complaint inadmissible for failure to exhaust recusal remedies in criminal proceedings: The applicant challenged the Higher Regional Court's rulings rejecting their applications for recusal based on suspected bias against a district judge, seeking a constitutional review prior to the final decision on the merits of the underlying criminal case. The Court held that such recusal decisions are ancillary to the main judgment and cannot be challenged in isolation via constitutional complaint; instead, they must be appealed jointly with the final decision on the merits through ordinary criminal procedure, specifically allowing a later revision based on the absolute ground for appeal regarding judicial bias under § 338 No. 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), thereby requiring the exhaustion of § 28 Para. 2 Sentence 2 StPO before constitutional review is admissible.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali sindacato giurisdizionale denuncia penale esaurimento delle istanze revisione della costituzione revisione di una decisione

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 28 Abs. 2 Satz 2 StPO
§ 338 Nr. 3 StPO
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural basis for the court to abstain from a further justification of the decision.
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 501/18
Constitutional complaint inadmissible for lack of exhaustion of remedies and insufficient substantiation; recusal request dismissed as obviously unfounded.
2 BvR 1547/20
Non-prosecution enforcement: inadmissibility of constitutional complaint due to failure to exhaust ordinary criminal review remedies
1 BvR 2182/25
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint against intermediate recusal decisions pending exhaustion of social court remedies
2 BvR 1243/12
Abuse of constitutional complaint for failure to exhaust ordinary legal remedies against judge recusal denial
1 BvR 1627/21
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint for insufficient substantiation and manifestly unfounded recusal motions based on prior non-acceptance decisions

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Procedural basis for the court to abstain from a further justification of the 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

Nichtannahmebeschluss mit Tenorbegründung: Mangelnde Rechtswegerschöpfung bzgl der Zurückweisung von Ablehnungsgesuchen im Strafverfahren

[TENOR]

Der Antrag auf Bewilligung von Prozesskostenhilfe und Beiordnung eines Rechtsanwalts wird abgelehnt, weil die beabsichtigte Rechtsverfolgung keine hinreichende Aussicht auf Erfolg bietet.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird, ohne dass es auf den Antrag auf Wiedereinsetzung in die versäumte Frist zur Begründung der Verfassungsbeschwerde ankommt, soweit sie sich gegen die Beschlüsse des Oberlandesgerichts Karlsruhe vom 28. September 2018 - 2 Ws 277/18 - und vom 22. Oktober 2018 - 2 Ws 277/18 - richtet, nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

Die im Zusammenhang mit der Ablehnung der zuständigen Amtsrichterin wegen der Besorgnis der Befangenheit ergangenen gerichtlichen Entscheidungen können einfachrechtlich gemeinsam mit der noch ausstehenden Entscheidung in der Hauptsache angefochten werden (§ 28 Abs. 2 Satz 2 StPO) und sind daher als gerichtliche Entscheidungen, die der Urteilsfällung vorausgehen, der isolierten Anfechtung mit der Verfassungsbeschwerde entzogen. Der Beschwerdeführer ist darauf zu verweisen, zunächst die nach Ergehen einer Entscheidung in der Hauptsache statthaften einfachrechtlichen Rechtsmittel auszuschöpfen, die im Fall einer Revision aufgrund des absoluten Revisionsgrundes des § 338 Nr. 3 StPO auch auf die Behauptung der Befangenheit eines erkennenden Richters gestützt werden können.

Damit erledigt sich der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung.

Von einer weitergehenden Begründung der Entscheidung wird gemäß § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.

[GRUENDE]

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.