Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 1183/20 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2021:rk20210122.2bvr118320 Generato dall'IA

Inadmissibility of recusal motion based solely on prior judicial participation and absence of reasoning for non-acceptance of constitutional complaint

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 1183/20
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 dismissed the constitutional complaint without further reasoning and rejected the challenge as unfounded, with the complainant effectively prevailing against the procedural requirements for a reasoned dismissal. The case involved a constitutional complaint against a prior non-acceptance decision and an attached motion for recusal of two judges, where the complainant argued that the lack of reasoning in earlier non-acceptance decisions and the judges' participation in those prior proceedings demonstrated a risk of bias. The court held that the recusal motion was inadmissible because the mere participation in a previous constitutional complaint procedure against the same complainant does not objectively give rise to a suspicion of bias, and that a non-acceptance decision under § 93d(1) sentence 3 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act does not require a statement of reasons. Key legal bases include § 93d(1) sentence 3 BVerfGG regarding the exemption from reasoning for non-acceptance decisions and § 19 BVerfGG concerning the requirements for a valid recusal request.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 19 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Inadmissibility of recusal motion based solely on prior judicial participation and absence of reasoning for non-acceptance of constitutional complaint: The case involved a constitutional complaint against a prior non-acceptance decision and an attached motion for recusal of two judges, where the complainant argued that the lack of reasoning in earlier non-acceptance decisions and the judges' participation in those prior proceedings demonstrated a risk of bias. The court held that the recusal motion was inadmissible because the mere participation in a previous constitutional complaint procedure against the same complainant does not objectively give rise to a suspicion of bias, and that a non-acceptance decision under § 93d(1) sentence 3 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act does not require a statement of reasons. Key legal bases include § 93d(1) sentence 3 BVerfGG regarding the exemption from reasoning for non-acceptance decisions and § 19 BVerfGG concerning the requirements for a valid recusal request.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
domanda di ricusazione requisito costituzionale motivazione parzialità del giudice eccezione di incostituzionalità partecipazione alla procedura

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 19 BVerfGG
Die bloße Mitwirkung an einer Entscheidung in einem vorangegangenen Verfassungsbeschwerdeverfahren desselben Beschwerdeführers kann die Besorgnis der Befangenheit im Sinne des § 19 BVerfGG offensichtlich nicht begründen (vgl.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
The provision cited as the basis for deciding the constitutional complaint without further reasoning and declaring the recusal motion inadmissible in the dispositive.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 2177/20
Admissibility of recusal requests based solely on prior participation in the complainant's cases and unreasoned non-acceptance of constitutional complaints
1 BvR 2163/20
Constitutional complaint recusal: Pauschalverweis to prior same-plaintiff cases fails to substantiate bias under § 18 BVerfGG
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 1126/17
Rejection of manifestly inadmissible recusal motions and non-admission of constitutional complaint without further reasoning under § 93d BVerfGG
2 BvR 137/24
Inadmissibility of recusal motions against non-participating or retired judges and denial of legal aid for constitutional complaint lacking prospects of success
2 BvR 2361/16
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint due to unsubstantiated judge recusal motion and lack of sufficient reasoning
1 BvR 1627/21
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint for insufficient substantiation and manifestly unfounded recusal motions based on prior non-acceptance decisions
1 BvR 1452/16
Constitutional complaint and recusal motion: Inadmissibility of recusal without substantive partiality evidence and lack of acceptance criteria for constitutional complaint

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

The provision cited as the basis for deciding the constitutional complaint without further reasoning and declaring the recusal motion inadmissible in the dispositive.

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 Verfassungsbeschwerde ohne weitere Begründung (§ 93d Abs 1 S 3 BVerfGG) - Verwerfung eines unzulässigen Ablehnungsgesuchs

[TENOR]

Das Ablehnungsgesuch gegen den Richter Huber und die Richterin Kessal-Wulf wird als unzulässig verworfen.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Das gegen den Richter Huber und die Richterin Kessal-Wulf gerichtete Ablehnungsgesuch ist unzulässig.

Ein Ablehnungsgesuch, das keine Begründung oder lediglich Ausführungen enthält, die zur Begründung der Besorgnis der Befangenheit gänzlich ungeeignet sind, ist unzulässig. Bei offensichtlicher Unzulässigkeit bedarf es keiner dienstlichen Stellungnahme des abgelehnten Richters; dieser ist auch von der Entscheidung über das offensichtlich unzulässige Ablehnungsgesuch nicht ausgeschlossen (vgl. BVerfGK 8, 59 ; BVerfG, Beschluss der 3. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 15. Dezember 2020 - 2 BvR 2177/20 -, Rn. 2). Die offensichtliche Unzulässigkeit ergibt sich vorliegend daraus, dass der Beschwerdeführer sein Ablehnungsgesuch in der Sache lediglich damit begründet, dass seine früheren Verfassungsbeschwerden ohne Begründung nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen worden seien. Die bloße Mitwirkung an einer Entscheidung in einem vorangegangenen Verfassungsbeschwerdeverfahren desselben Beschwerdeführers kann die Besorgnis der Befangenheit im Sinne des § 19 BVerfGG offensichtlich nicht begründen (vgl. BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 28. Oktober 2020 - 1 BvR 2163/20 -, Rn. 2; Beschluss der 3. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 15. Dezember 2020 - 2 BvR 2177/20 -, Rn. 2). Entgegen der Auffassung des Beschwerdeführers bedarf die Ablehnung der Annahme der Verfassungsbeschwerde keiner Begründung (vgl. § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG).

Von einer Begründung der Nichtannahme der Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.