Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 326/20 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2020:rk20200310.2bvr032620 Generato dall'IA

Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint due to lack of reasoned argument and denial of lawyer appointment for lack of objective necessity

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 326/20
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 a constitutional complaint for decision and denied the applicant’s request for leave to retain legal counsel, resulting in the applicant’s defeat. The dispute involved a constitutional challenge against a decision whose specific subject matter is not detailed in the order, but which was dismissed during the admissibility review. The court held that the complaint was obviously inadmissible under § 93a(2) BVerfGG due to significant deficiencies in its legal justification, and the request for a lawyer under § 22(1) sentence 4 BVerfGG was rejected because the applicant failed to demonstrate that such representation was objectively necessary for the administration of justice.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 22 Abs. 1 Satz 4 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint due to lack of reasoned argument and denial of lawyer appointment for lack of objective necessity: The dispute involved a constitutional challenge against a decision whose specific subject matter is not detailed in the order, but which was dismissed during the admissibility review. The court held that the complaint was obviously inadmissible under § 93a(2) BVerfGG due to significant deficiencies in its legal justification, and the request for a lawyer under § 22(1) sentence 4 BVerfGG was rejected because the applicant failed to demonstrate that such representation was objectively necessary for the administration of justice.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali nomina del difensore oggetto della lite allegazione motivata motivi che possono invocarsi rappresentanza legale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG
Main ground for the decision not to accept the constitutional complaint for decision due to obvious inadmissibility.
§ 22 Abs. 1 Satz 4 BVerfGG
Procedural rule applied to reject the request for the admission of a legal assistant.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Basis for waiving a further detailed reasoning in the decision.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 68, 360
hierzu BVerfGE 68, 360 ; BVerfGK 13, 171 ).
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 327/20
Rejection of constitutional complaint as evidently inadmissible due to insufficient legal reasoning
1 BvR 781/17
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint due to lack of qualified representation under § 22 BVerfGG
2 BvR 307/21
Constitutional complaint inadmissible for lack of sufficient reasoning and failure to address prior decision grounds
1 BvR 380/26
Constitutional complaint inadmissible for lack of substantiation; denial of legal assistant admission absent objective utility
1 BvR 1721/09
Constitutional complaint rejected for procedural inadmissibility without reasoned decision

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Main ground for the decision not to accept the constitutional complaint for decision due to obvious inadmissibility.

§ 22 Abs. 1 Satz 4 BVerfGG

Procedural rule applied to reject the request for the admission of a legal assistant.

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Basis for waiving a further detailed reasoning in 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

Nichtannahme einer wegen Begründungsmängeln offensichtlich unzulässigen Verfassungsbeschwerde - Ablehnung der Beistandszulassung mangels Sachdienlichkeit

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

Damit erledigt sich der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung.

Der Antrag auf Zulassung eines Beistandes wird abgelehnt.

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist gemäß § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG nicht zur Entscheidung anzunehmen, da sie wegen ihrer Begründungsmängel offensichtlich unzulässig ist.

Der Antrag auf Zulassung eines Beistandes nach § 22 Abs. 1 Satz 4 BVerfGG ist abzulehnen, weil weder vorgetragen noch ersichtlich ist, dass die in das pflichtgemäße Ermessen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts gestellte Zulassung objektiv sachdienlich ist (vgl. hierzu BVerfGE 68, 360 ; BVerfGK 13, 171 ).

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.