Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 519/21 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2021:rk20210427.1bvr051921 Generato dall'IA

Omission of reasoned judgment for non-admitted constitutional complaint and mandatory recusal of judge who participated in the challenged lower-court decisions

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 519/21
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 declined to admit the constitutional complaint for decision, rendering the ruling final and unchallengeable without further reasoned explanation under § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG. The dispute involved a constitutional complaint challenging decisions of the Federal Court of Justice, requiring a recusal procedure where the judge who participated in the underlying lower-court rulings was replaced by a substitute judge to ensure impartiality pursuant to § 18 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 BVerfGG. The decisive legal basis was the statutory provision permitting the chamber to omit a reasoned decision for inadmissible or manifestly unfounded constitutional complaints, alongside the conflict-of-interest rules mandating the exclusion of judges with prior involvement in the challenged proceedings.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 18 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Omission of reasoned judgment for non-admitted constitutional complaint and mandatory recusal of judge who participated in the challenged lower-court decisions: 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG. The dispute involved a constitutional complaint challenging decisions of the Federal Court of Justice, requiring a recusal procedure where the judge who participated in the underlying lower-court rulings was replaced by a substitute judge to ensure impartiality pursuant to § 18 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 BVerfGG. The decisive legal basis was the statutory provision permitting the chamber to omit a reasoned decision for inadmissible or manifestly unfounded constitutional complaints, alongside the conflict-of-interest rules mandating the exclusion of judges with prior involvement in the challenged proceedings.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali misura di allontanamento regolamento interno decisione motivata sentenza contumaciale norma di conflitto

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 18 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 BVerfGG
Die Kammer entscheidet gemäß § 18 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 BVerfGG ohne Mitwirkung des Richters Radtke, der als damaliger Richter am Bundesgerichtshof an den unter b) und unter c) angegriffenen Entscheidungen mitgewirkt hat.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Cited to justify the omission of a reasoned decision for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 450/19
Unjustified constitutional complaint and inadmissible recusal request against a judge not sitting in the deciding chamber
2 BvR 1821/22
Constitutional complaint non-acceptance and recusal admissibility without substantive justification under § 93d BVerfGG
2 BvR 28/21
Rejection of constitutional complaint without reasons and manifestly inadmissible recusal of a judge due to prior non-acceptance decision
1 BvR 1608/18
Recusal request against judges not assigned to the deciding chamber is moot; non-acceptance of constitutional complaint without further reasoning
2 BvR 341/20
Insufficiently reasoned constitutional complaint and recusal request against unassigned judges

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Cited to justify the omission of a reasoned decision 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 Verfassungsbeschwerde ohne weitere Begründung - Entscheidung ohne Mitwirkung eines Richters, der als Richter am BGH an mehreren der angegriffenen Entscheidungen mitgewirkt hatte

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

I. Die Kammer entscheidet gemäß § 18 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 BVerfGG ohne Mitwirkung des Richters Radtke, der als damaliger Richter am Bundesgerichtshof an den unter b) und unter c) angegriffenen Entscheidungen mitgewirkt hat. Er wird von der Richterin Härtel vertreten (vgl. BVerfG, Beschluss des Ersten Senats zur Kammerbesetzung für das Geschäftsjahr 2021 vom 15. Dezember 2020).

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.