Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 269/21, 2 BvR 423/21, 2 BvR 424/21, 2 BvR 604/21 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2021:rk20210429.2bvr026921 Generato dall'IA

Inadmissibility of unsubstantiated constitutional complaints and potential imposition of abuse fees

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 269/21, 2 BvR 423/21, 2 BvR 424/21, 2 BvR 604/21
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 German Federal Constitutional Court declined to accept four constitutional complaints for decision, leaving the underlying matters resolved without merits review, while also denying the complainant's applications for legal aid and court-appointed counsel. The disputes arose from conditional constitutional complaints that the Court deemed procedurally defective. The decisive legal basis for the non-acceptance was the lack of sufficient substantiation required by §§ 23(1) sentence 2 and 92 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), rendering the complaints inadmissible as the Court found no grounds for acceptance under § 93a(2) BVerfGG; the Court further noted that § 34(2) BVerfGG permits the imposition of an abuse fee for future filings that are recognably unsubstantiated and hinder the Court's functioning, and no further justification was provided pursuant to § 93d(1) sentence 3 BVerfGG.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 92 BVerfGG, § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG; Inadmissibility of unsubstantiated constitutional complaints and potential imposition of abuse fees: The disputes arose from conditional constitutional complaints that the Court deemed procedurally defective. The decisive legal basis for the non-acceptance was the lack of sufficient substantiation required by §§ 23(1) sentence 2 and 92 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), rendering the complaints inadmissible as the Court found no grounds for acceptance under § 93a(2) BVerfGG; the Court further noted that § 34(2) BVerfGG permits the imposition of an abuse fee for future filings that are recognably unsubstantiated and hinder the Court's functioning, and no further justification was provided pursuant to § 93d(1) sentence 3 BVerfGG.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali spese legali patrocinio gratuito gratuito patrocinio violazione dei diritti procedurali mancanza di prova

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG
Basis for not accepting the constitutional complaints for decision due to the absence of grounds for admissibility.
§ 92 BVerfGG
1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG nicht substantiiert begründet sind (vgl.
§ 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG
Basis for the warning that an abuse fee may be imposed on the complainant in future proceedings.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Von einer weiteren Begründung wird nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.
§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG
Procedural basis for declaring the complaints inadmissible because they were not sufficiently substantiated.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 269/21
Inadmissibility of unsubstantiated constitutional complaints and potential imposition of abuse fees
2 BvR 423/21
Inadmissibility of unsubstantiated constitutional complaints and potential imposition of abuse fees
2 BvR 424/21
Inadmissibility of unsubstantiated constitutional complaints and potential imposition of abuse fees
2 BvR 604/21
Inadmissibility of unsubstantiated constitutional complaints and potential imposition of abuse fees
BVerfGE 81, 208
BVerfGE 81, 208 ; 89, 155 ; stRspr).
2 BvR 415/18
Inadmissibility of unsubstantiated constitutional complaints and abuse-of-process penalties
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 415/18, 2 BvR 420/18, 2 BvR 442/18, 2 BvR 443/18, 2 BvR 452/18, 2 BvR 453/18, 2 BvR 507/18, 2 BvR 508/18, 2 BvR 517/18, 2 BvR 518/18, 2 BvR 527/18, 2 BvR 528/18, 2 BvR 545/18, 2 BvR 546/18, 2 BvR 580/18, 2 BvR 581/18, 2 BvR 590/18, 2 BvR 591/18, 2 BvR 600/18, 2 BvR 623/18, 2 BvR 624/18
Inadmissibility of unsubstantiated constitutional complaints and abuse-of-process penalties
2 BvR 263/21, 2 BvR 276/21, 2 BvR 284/21, 2 BvR 304/21
Inadmissible constitutional complaint: non-substantiation of rights violation and risk of abuse fee
2 BvR 1598/19
Inadmissibility of unsubstantiated constitutional complaint and warning of abuse penalty fees.
1 BvR 2244/19
Inadmissibility of un-substantiated constitutional complaint and imposition of abuse fee for insulting, conspiracy-theoretic content.
2 BvR 1683/21
Unsubstantiated constitutional complaint inadmissible; warning on potential misuse fee for frivolous filings

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Basis for not accepting the constitutional complaints for decision due to the absence of grounds for admissibility.

§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG

Procedural basis for declaring the complaints inadmissible because they were not sufficiently substantiated.

§ 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Basis for the warning that an abuse fee may be imposed on the complainant in future proceedings.

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 mangels hinreichender Substantiierung unzulässiger Verfassungsbeschwerden - Hinweis auf Möglichkeit der Auferlegung einer Missbrauchsgebühr

[TENOR]

Die Verfahren 2 BvR 269/21, 2 BvR 423/21, 2 BvR 424/21 und 2 BvR 604/21 werden zur gemeinsamen Entscheidung verbunden.

Die Anträge auf Bewilligung von Prozesskostenhilfe und Beiordnung eines Rechtsanwalts werden abgelehnt, weil die beabsichtigte Rechtsverfolgung keine hinreichende Aussicht auf Erfolg bietet.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerden werden nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

I. Die - zumindest bedingt erhobenen - Verfassungsbeschwerden sind nicht zur Entscheidung anzunehmen, da Annahmegründe gemäß § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG nicht gegeben sind. Die Verfassungsbeschwerden sind bereits unzulässig, weil sie entgegen § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG nicht substantiiert begründet sind (vgl. BVerfGE 81, 208 ; 89, 155 ; stRspr).

II. Der Beschwerdeführer wird für künftige Verfahren darauf hingewiesen, dass ihm bei Vorliegen der Voraussetzungen des § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG eine Missbrauchsgebühr auferlegt werden kann. Ein Missbrauch kann auch vorliegen, wenn das Bundesverfassungsgericht durch für jedermann erkennbar substanzlose Verfassungsbeschwerden an der Erfüllung seiner Aufgaben gehindert wird, wodurch anderen Rechtsuchenden der ihnen zukommende Grundrechtsschutz nur verzögert gewährt werden kann (vgl. Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 12. April 2018 - 2 BvR 415/18 u.a. -, Rn. 2).

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.