Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 1948/20 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2021:rk20210111.2bvr194820 Generato dall'IA

Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint for failure to substantiate specific fundamental rights violation against ordinary law application

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 1948/20
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 declined to accept the constitutional complaint for decision, effectively denying the petitioner relief and leaving the underlying lower-court judgment in force. The case involved a criminal law petitioner who challenged a superior court's ruling on grounds of flawed evidence appraisal and excessive sentencing. The Court found the complaint inadmissible because the petitioner failed to submit the lower court's reasoning or adequately explain how the alleged errors violated the German Basic Law; the Court emphasized that it does not review the interpretation or application of ordinary law unless such interpretation is objectively arbitrary or irreconcilable with the significance of fundamental rights, and the petition failed to meet this high threshold under established case law. The decision was rendered without further detailed reasoning pursuant to § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint for failure to substantiate specific fundamental rights violation against ordinary law application: The case involved a criminal law petitioner who challenged a superior court's ruling on grounds of flawed evidence appraisal and excessive sentencing. The Court found the complaint inadmissible because the petitioner failed to submit the lower court's reasoning or adequately explain how the alleged errors violated the German Basic Law; the Court emphasized that it does not review the interpretation or application of ordinary law unless such interpretation is objectively arbitrary or irreconcilable with the significance of fundamental rights, and the petition failed to meet this high threshold under established case law. The decision was rendered without further detailed reasoning pursuant to § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
limiti costituzionali interpretazione della sentenza diritti fondamentali ricorso costituzionale all'estero diritto di petizione denuncia penale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural basis cited in the dispositive to justify dispensing with further reasoning for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 65, 317
BVerfGE 18, 85
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 963/16
Constitutional complaint rejected for failure to substantiate fundamental rights violation
1 BvR 1753/19
Constitutional complaint against appellate court decision: Inadmissibility due to insufficient demonstration of direct fundamental rights violation
2 BvR 923/24
Failure to substantiate alleged fundamental rights violation rendering constitutional complaint inadmissible under BVerfGG § 23(1) and § 92
2 BvR 637/18
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint for insufficient substantiation due to failure to submit underlying court records
2 BvR 847/19
Constitutional complaint inadmissible for insufficient substantiation and failure to submit lower court decision

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Procedural basis cited in the dispositive to justify dispensing with further reasoning for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.

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 mangels hinreichender Begründung unzulässigen Verfassungsbeschwerde

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Der Beschwerdeführer hat weder die Urteilsgründe des landgerichtlichen Urteils vorgelegt, noch diese in der für eine verantwortbare verfassungsrechtliche Beurteilung erforderlichen Weise in seiner Verfassungsbeschwerde dargestellt. Sein Vortrag beschränkt sich auf einen Angriff der Beweiswürdigung und der Strafzumessung, welcher ohne die Urteilsgründe nicht nachvollzogen werden kann. Zudem rügt er damit allein die Auslegung und Anwendung einfachen Rechts, welche vom Bundesverfassungsgericht erst dann überprüft wird, wenn sie mit Bedeutung und Tragweite eines Grundrechts nicht zu vereinbaren ist oder sich als objektiv willkürlich erweist (vgl. BVerfGE 65, 317 ). Das Bundesverfassungsgericht beanstandet nur die Verletzung spezifischen Verfassungsrechts (stRspr; vgl. nur BVerfGE 18, 85 ).

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.