Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 916/19 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2019:rk20190611.2bvr091619 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional right to effective legal protection vs. blocking travel-cost fee for prisoner's self-representation in prison-law proceedings

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 916/19
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 did not accept the constitutional complaint for decision, finding it inadmissible for failure to exhaust legal remedies, leaving the lower instance proceedings in force. The dispute concerned a prisoner's challenge to a regional regulation that made the lodging of a procedural objection under § 118 Abs. 3 Alt. 2 StVollzG dependent on the payment of a travel cost flat rate, which the complainant argued deterred effective access to justice. While dismissing the complaint for lack of prior judicial review, the Court issued a legally significant observation stating that deriving such a right from the rule of law and the guarantee of effective legal protection does not permit conditioning the sole statutory avenue for self-representation in prison legal proceedings on the payment of an intimidating travel fee under § 41 Abs. 1 Satz 3 StVollzG Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 90 Abs. 2 Satz 1 BVerfGG, § 90 Abs. 2 Satz 2 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Constitutional right to effective legal protection vs. blocking travel-cost fee for prisoner's self-representation in prison-law proceedings: The dispute concerned a prisoner's challenge to a regional regulation that made the lodging of a procedural objection under § 118 Abs. 3 Alt. 2 StVollzG dependent on the payment of a travel cost flat rate, which the complainant argued deterred effective access to justice. While dismissing the complaint for lack of prior judicial review, the Court issued a legally significant observation stating that deriving such a right from the rule of law and the guarantee of effective legal protection does not permit conditioning the sole statutory avenue for self-representation in prison legal proceedings on the payment of an intimidating travel fee under § 41 Abs. 1 Satz 3 StVollzG Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
spese legali diritto a un ricorso effettivo diritti procedurali detenuto tutela legale requisito costituzionale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 90 Abs. 2 Satz 1 BVerfGG
Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist unzulässig, weil der Beschwerdeführer den Rechtsweg nicht erschöpft hat (§ 90 Abs. 2 Satz 1 BVerfGG), obwohl ihm dies zumutbar wäre (§ 90 Abs.
§ 90 Abs. 2 Satz 2 BVerfGG
2 Satz 1 BVerfGG), obwohl ihm dies zumutbar wäre (§ 90 Abs. 2 Satz 2 BVerfGG).
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Cited in the operative order to justify the omission of a further reasoning.
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 981/19
Conditioning prisoner's right to file protest under § 118 Abs. 3 StVollzG on deterrent travel cost payment violates right to legal protection
2 BvR 1455/19
Constitutional complaint challenging fee dependency of prison legal complaint; inadmissible due to failure to exhaust remedies
2 BvR 437/12
Constitutional complaint regarding non-treatment of urgent injunction against strip-search barred by failure to exhaust compensation claim for excessive proceedings under § 198 GVG
2 BvR 1635/19
Constitutional admissibility of prisoner's legal protection complaint where lower courts rigidly construed procedural motion to bar substantive review under Art. 19(4) GG
2 BvR 1255/23
Prison telephone tariffs: Constitutional doubts on effective legal protection for inadequate market-rate fact-finding, but complaint barred by failure to substantiate filing deadline

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Cited in the operative order to justify the omission of a further reasoning.

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: Möglichkeit der Einlegung einer Rechtsbeschwerde zu Protokoll der Geschäftsstelle (§ 118 Abs 3 Alt 2 StVollzG) darf nicht von der Zahlung einer Fahrtkostenpauschale in abschreckender Höhe abhängig gemacht werden - hier: Unzulässigkeit der Verfassungsbeschwerde mangels Rechtswegerschöpfung

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist unzulässig, weil der Beschwerdeführer den Rechtsweg nicht erschöpft hat (§ 90 Abs. 2 Satz 1 BVerfGG), obwohl ihm dies zumutbar wäre (§ 90 Abs. 2 Satz 2 BVerfGG).

Die Kammer weist jedoch darauf hin, dass es der aus dem Rechtsstaatsprinzip abzuleitenden Rechtsschutzgarantie nicht genügen dürfte, wenn - wie der Beschwerdeführer vorträgt - die einzige für Strafgefangene bestehende Möglichkeit, eine den Anforderungen des § 118 Abs. 3 Strafvollzugsgesetz genügende Rechtsbeschwerde ohne Einschaltung eines Rechtsanwaltes einzulegen, von der Zahlung einer auf § 41 Abs. 1 Satz 3 Strafvollzugsgesetz Mecklenburg-Vorpommern gestützten Fahrtkostenpauschale abhängig gemacht wird und diese geeignet ist, in der Inanspruchnahme des Rechtsschutzes abzuschrecken.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.