Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 648/21 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2021:rk20210531.2bvr064821 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional complaint rejected for lack of substantiation; warning of abuse fee for manifestly unsubstantiated filings

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 648/21
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 rejected the applicant's petition for leave to file a constitutional complaint and denied his application for legal aid, finding the complaint inadmissible for lack of sufficient substantiation. The dispute concerned a constitutional complaint that failed to meet the mandatory pleading requirements, resulting in the immediate dismissal of the case without a merits review. The decision was grounded in Section 93a(2) of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG) for the absence of grounds for acceptance and Section 23(1) sentence 2 in conjunction with Section 92 BVerfGG for non-substantiation, with the Court additionally warning that the filing of manifestly substantively empty complaints may constitute an abuse of process subject to the imposition of an abuse fee under Section 34(2) BVerfGG.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 92 BVerfGG, § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Constitutional complaint rejected for lack of substantiation; warning of abuse fee for manifestly unsubstantiated filings: The dispute concerned a constitutional complaint that failed to meet the mandatory pleading requirements, resulting in the immediate dismissal of the case without a merits review. The decision was grounded in Section 93a(2) of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG) for the absence of grounds for acceptance and Section 23(1) sentence 2 in conjunction with Section 92 BVerfGG for non-substantiation, with the Court additionally warning that the filing of manifestly substantively empty complaints may constitute an abuse of process subject to the imposition of an abuse fee under Section 34(2) BVerfGG.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali abuso del processo controllo della procedura mancanza di prova allegazioni insufficientemente motivate licenziamento in tronco

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG
Cited as the primary procedural basis for rejecting the constitutional complaint because no grounds for acceptance were present.
§ 92 BVerfGG
1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG nicht substantiiert begründet ist (vgl.
§ 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG
Cited in the dispositive to warn that an abuse fee may be imposed for filing manifestly unsubstantiated complaints.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Cited to justify the omission of a further detailed written reasoning in the decision.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 81, 208
BVerfGE 81, 208 ; 99, 84 ; stRspr).
2 BvR 415/18
Inadmissibility of unsubstantiated constitutional complaints and abuse-of-process penalties
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 704/23
Insufficient substantiation of constitutional complaint and abusive filing by attorney triggering warning of abuse fee
1 BvR 1195/24
Constitutional complaint rejected for lack of substantiation; warning of abuse fee for filing repetitive, unreasoned legal templates
1 BvR 2557/24
Unsubstantiated constitutional complaint rejected; abuse fee imposed for boilerplate reasoning
2 BvR 271/21, 2 BvR 291/21, 2 BvR 574/21
Unsubstantiated constitutional complaints: refusal to accept and warning of abuse fee
2 BvR 175/23, 2 BvR 176/23
Constitutional complaints rejected for insufficient substantiation; warning on abuse fees for manifestly baseless filings

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Cited as the primary procedural basis for rejecting the constitutional complaint because no grounds for acceptance were present.

§ 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Cited in the dispositive to warn that an abuse fee may be imposed for filing manifestly unsubstantiated complaints.

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Cited to justify the omission of a further detailed written reasoning in the decision.

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 Substantiierung unzulässigen Verfassungsbeschwerde - Hinweis auf Möglichkeit der Auferlegung einer Missbrauchsgebühr bei Einlegung substanzloser Verfassungsbeschwerden

[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.

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist nicht zur Entscheidung anzunehmen, da Annahmegründe gemäß § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG nicht vorliegen. Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist bereits unzulässig, weil sie entgegen den Anforderungen aus § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG nicht substantiiert begründet ist (vgl. BVerfGE 81, 208 ; 99, 84 ; stRspr).

Für künftige Verfahren wird der Beschwerdeführer 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. BVerfG, 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.