Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 179/21 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2021:rk20210202.1bvr017921 Generato dall'IA

Timeliness of constitutional complaint: whether a decision following an inadmissible legal remedy restarts the filing deadline

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 179/21
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 applicant's application for legal aid and refused to accept the constitutional complaint for decision, leaving the underlying final judgment of the higher regional court in force. The dispute concerned the timeliness of a constitutional complaint challenging the exhaustion of the legal remedy path, where the applicant argued that a subsequent decision rendered following an inadmissible legal remedy should restart the filing deadline. The court held that a decision triggered by an inadmissible legal remedy does not belong to the legal remedy path under § 90 Abs. 2 BVerfGG and is therefore incapable of resetting the one-month filing period mandated by § 93 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG, which began running from the service of the final decision on June 23, 2020.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG, § 90 Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 93 Abs. 1 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, § 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG; Timeliness of constitutional complaint: whether a decision following an inadmissible legal remedy restarts the filing deadline: The dispute concerned the timeliness of a constitutional complaint challenging the exhaustion of the legal remedy path, where the applicant argued that a subsequent decision rendered following an inadmissible legal remedy should restart the filing deadline. The court held that a decision triggered by an inadmissible legal remedy does not belong to the legal remedy path under § 90 Abs. 2 BVerfGG and is therefore incapable of resetting the one-month filing period mandated by § 93 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG, which began running from the service of the final decision on June 23, 2020.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
tempestività dell'inoltro motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali gratuito patrocinio durata ragionevole del procedimento esaurimento delle istanze eccezioni processuali tardive

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG
Main ground for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint due to the expiration of the one-month filing period.
§ 90 Abs. 2 BVerfGG
September 2020 gehört nicht zum Rechtsweg des § 90 Abs. 2 BVerfGG und ist nicht geeignet, die Beschwerdefrist des § 93 Abs.
§ 93 Abs. 1 BVerfGG
2 BVerfGG und ist nicht geeignet, die Beschwerdefrist des § 93 Abs. 1 BVerfGG erneut in Lauf zu setzen.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Von einer weiteren Begründung wird nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.
§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG
Procedural rule rendering the application for interim relief moot as a consequence of the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 1462/21
Constitutional complaint inadmissible for missing filing deadline; parallel state constitutional complaint does not suspend the period
2 BvR 171/20
Constitutional complaint inadmissible due to failure to prove timeliness of filing where judgment served to counsel and principal at different times
1 BvR 1640/21
Constitutional complaint: Failure to exhaust legal remedies via unauthorized legal instruments does not toll the one-month filing deadline
2 BvR 834/19
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint for lack of substantiation; non-extendability of filing deadline
2 BvR 704/14
Constitutional complaint inadmissible due to missed filing deadline and erroneous interpretation of procedural time limit start date

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Main ground for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint due to the expiration of the one-month filing period.

§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG

Procedural rule rendering the application for interim relief moot as a consequence of 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 verfristeten Verfassungsbeschwerde - unzulässiger Rechtsbehelf hält Monatsfrist des § 93 Abs 1 S 1 BVerfGG nicht offen

[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 nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

Mit der Nichtannahme der Verfassungsbeschwerde wird der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung gegenstandslos (§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG).

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen, weil sie nicht binnen der Monatsfrist nach § 93 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG erhoben worden ist. Maßgeblich für die Fristberechnung ist vorliegend der Zugang der den Rechtsmittelzug abschließenden angegriffenen Entscheidung des Oberlandesgerichts vom 23. Juni 2020. Die durch einen unzulässigen Rechtsbehelf ausgelöste weitere Entscheidung vom 22. September 2020 gehört nicht zum Rechtsweg des § 90 Abs. 2 BVerfGG und ist nicht geeignet, die Beschwerdefrist des § 93 Abs. 1 BVerfGG erneut in Lauf zu setzen.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.