Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 1862/20 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2021:rk20210816.2bvr186220 Generato dall'IA

Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint against EU acts and unproven ultra vires or constitutional identity violations

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 1862/20
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 German Federal Constitutional Court declined to hear the constitutional complaint, dismissing it as inadmissible and rendering the decision final. The complainant challenged communications and inactions by the European Court of Justice, the European Commission, the Council, and the European Parliament, as well as alleged failures by the German Federal Government, Bundestag, and Bundesrat, within a trademark-related dispute. The Court held that measures by EU institutions are not acts of German public authority and thus constitute an ineligible subject for constitutional complaint under Article 93(1) No. 4a Basic Law; furthermore, the complaint failed to substantiate that the challenged acts were ultra vires or violated constitutional identity under Article 79(3) Basic Law, and did not demonstrate a breach of state action or omission duties arising from integrative responsibility.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 90 Abs. 1 BVerfGG, Art. 79 Abs. 3 GG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, Art. 93 Abs. 1 Nr. 4a GG; Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint against EU acts and unproven ultra vires or constitutional identity violations: The complainant challenged communications and inactions by the European Court of Justice, the European Commission, the Council, and the European Parliament, as well as alleged failures by the German Federal Government, Bundestag, and Bundesrat, within a trademark-related dispute. The Court held that measures by EU institutions are not acts of German public authority and thus constitute an ineligible subject for constitutional complaint under Article 93(1) No. 4a Basic Law; furthermore, the complaint failed to substantiate that the challenged acts were ultra vires or violated constitutional identity under Article 79(3) Basic Law, and did not demonstrate a breach of state action or omission duties arising from integrative responsibility.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali oggetto della lite marchio comunitario violazione dell'ordine pubblico obbligo d'identificazione pubblica udienza

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG
Procedural basis cited in the first numbered order to justify the decision not to take up the constitutional complaint for adjudication.
§ 90 Abs. 1 BVerfGG
Procedural provision cited in the third numbered order to confirm that the complaint is not admissible and that rights violations are not substantiated.
Art. 79 Abs. 3 GG
Substantive provision cited in the third numbered order to reject the argument regarding ultra-vires acts or violations of constitutional identity.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural provision cited in the fifth numbered order to justify the omission of a further reasoned explanation.
Art. 93 Abs. 1 Nr. 4a GG
Substantive provision cited in the second numbered order to establish that the complaint lacks a valid subject matter because it targets EU acts.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 142, 123
1 BVerfGG und daher auch nicht unmittelbarer Beschwerdegegenstand im Verfahren der Verfassungsbeschwerde (BVerfGE 142, 123 ; stRspr).
BVerfGE 151, 202
BVerfGE 151, 202 ) verstoßen haben könnten.
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 2454/18, 2 BvR 227/19, 2 BvR 339/19
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaints challenging EU judicial measures for lacking concrete act of German public authority
2 BvQ 7/19
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint against European Union Court measures as non-German public authority
1 BvR 2571/12
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint for failure to substantiate violation of right to judge by law due to refusal to refer EU state liability question to ECJ.
1 BvR 471/21
Constitutional complaint rejected as manifestly inadmissible for failure to identify a concrete act of state authority and substantiate a constitutional grievance.
2 BvR 2752/11
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint challenging EU Commission fine and CJEU judgments as acts of foreign public authority lacking domestic enforcement basis

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Procedural basis cited in the first numbered order to justify the decision not to take up the constitutional complaint for adjudication.

Art. 93 Abs. 1 Nr. 4a GG

Substantive provision cited in the second numbered order to establish that the complaint lacks a valid subject matter because it targets EU acts.

§ 90 Abs. 1 BVerfGG

Procedural provision cited in the third numbered order to confirm that the complaint is not admissible and that rights violations are not substantiated.

Art. 79 Abs. 3 GG

Substantive provision cited in the third numbered order to reject the argument regarding ultra-vires acts or violations of constitutional identity.

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Procedural provision cited in the fifth numbered order to justify the omission of a further reasoned explanation.

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

Nichtannahmebeschluss: Unzulässige Verfassungsbeschwerde in einer markenrechtlichen Sache - Akte von Unionsorganen kein statthafter Beschwerdegegenstand - Ultra-vires-Handeln oder Verletzung der Verfassungsidentität weder hinreichend dargelegt noch sonst ersichtlich

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist nicht zur Entscheidung anzunehmen (§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG), weil sie unzulässig ist.

1. Soweit sich die Beschwerdeführerin gegen die Schreiben des Europäischen Gerichtshofs beziehungsweise ein Unterlassen von Kommission, Rat und Europäischem Parlament wendet, liegt der Verfassungsbeschwerde kein tauglicher Beschwerdegegenstand zugrunde. Maßnahmen von Organen, Einrichtungen und sonstigen Stellen der Europäischen Union sind keine Akte deutscher öffentlicher Gewalt im Sinne von Art. 93 Abs. 1 Nr. 4a GG, § 90 Abs. 1 BVerfGG und daher auch nicht unmittelbarer Beschwerdegegenstand im Verfahren der Verfassungsbeschwerde (BVerfGE 142, 123 ; stRspr).

2. Die Beschwerdeführerin macht auch nicht substantiiert geltend und es ist auch nicht ersichtlich, dass es sich bei den angegriffenen Maßnahmen um Ultra-vires-Akte oder Berührungen der Verfassungsidentität gemäß Art. 79 Abs. 3 GG handelt.

Soweit die Verfassungsbeschwerde daher ein Unterlassen von Bundesregierung, Bundestag und Bundesrat rügt, lässt ihre Begründung eine Verletzung von Rechten im Sinne des § 90 Abs. 1 BVerfGG inhaltlich nachvollziehbar nicht erkennen. Insbesondere ist nicht ansatzweise ersichtlich, dass die genannten Verfassungsorgane insoweit gegen eine aus der Integrationsverantwortung folgende Handlungs- oder Unterlassungspflicht (vgl. BVerfGE 151, 202 ) verstoßen haben könnten.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.