Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 2590/21 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2022:rk20220427.1bvr259021 Generato dall'IA

Reimbursement of litigation costs after settlement of a constitutional complaint based on its obvious inadmissibility

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 2590/21
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Constitutional Court (First Senate, First Chamber) rejected the applicant's request for reimbursement of necessary costs, affirming that the constitutional complaint was dismissed as obviously inadmissible. The dispute arose after the applicant declared the constitutional complaint for settlement, subsequently petitioning the chamber to cover her litigation expenses. The court determined that following the declaration of settlement, cost reimbursement is subject to equitable considerations under § 34a(3) BVerfGG; however, because the underlying constitutional complaint was evidently inadmissible and the applicant failed to demonstrate that equitable grounds justified reimbursement under the totality of the circumstances, the request was denied.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 34a Abs. 3 BVerfGG; Reimbursement of litigation costs after settlement of a constitutional complaint based on its obvious inadmissibility: The dispute arose after the applicant declared the constitutional complaint for settlement, subsequently petitioning the chamber to cover her litigation expenses. The court determined that following the declaration of settlement, cost reimbursement is subject to equitable considerations under § 34a(3) BVerfGG; however, because the underlying constitutional complaint was evidently inadmissible and the applicant failed to demonstrate that equitable grounds justified reimbursement under the totality of the circumstances, the request was denied.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
rimborso delle spese fine del processo motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali motivi validi giurisdizione costituzionale soccorso d'emergenza costituzionale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 34a Abs. 3 BVerfGG
Serves as the procedural basis for deciding the request for reimbursement of litigation costs following the declaration that the constitutional complaint has become moot.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 72, 34
Die Verfassungsbeschwerde der Beschwerdeführerin wurde mit Schreiben vom 11. April 2022 für erledigt erklärt. Die Beschwerdeführerin hat einen Antrag auf Erstattung ihrer Auslagen gestellt. Darüber zu entscheiden, obliegt der Kammer (vgl. BVerfGE 72, 34 ).
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 1378/20
Reimbursement of constitutional complaint costs upon completion: rejection for lack of evident prospects of success
2 BvR 1890/19
Reimbursement of constitutional complaint costs denied where complaint was inadmissible due to pending hearing objection
2 BvR 987/10
Cost reimbursement despite dismissed constitutional complaint: contribution to clarifying a question of fundamental significance
1 BvR 797/14
Reimbursement of constitutional complaint costs under Section 34a(3) BVerfGG where complaint was not admitted
2 BvR 2128/18
Reimbursement of costs for unsuccessful constitutional complaint under § 34a Abs. 3 BVerfGG requiring special equity grounds

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 34a Abs. 3 BVerfGG

Serves as the procedural basis for deciding the request for reimbursement of litigation costs following the declaration that the constitutional complaint has become moot.

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

Ablehnung der Auslagenerstattung nach Erledigterklärung - offensichtliche Unzulässigkeit der Verfassungsbeschwerde

[TENOR]

Der Antrag der Beschwerdeführerin auf Anordnung der Erstattung ihrer notwendigen Auslagen wird abgelehnt.

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde der Beschwerdeführerin wurde mit Schreiben vom 11. April 2022 für erledigt erklärt. Die Beschwerdeführerin hat einen Antrag auf Erstattung ihrer Auslagen gestellt. Darüber zu entscheiden, obliegt der Kammer (vgl. BVerfGE 72, 34 ).

Der Antrag hat keinen Erfolg. Nach Erledigung der Verfassungsbeschwerde ist über die Erstattung der der Beschwerdeführerin entstandenen Auslagen nach Billigkeitsgesichtspunkten zu entscheiden, § 34a Abs. 3 BVerfGG. Die Verfassungsbeschwerde war nicht zur Entscheidung anzunehmen, da sie offensichtlich unzulässig war. Die Beschwerdeführerin hat darüber hinaus weder dargetan noch ist ersichtlich, dass eine Erstattung der Auslagen aus anderen Gründen unter Gesamtwürdigung aller bekannten Umständen der Billigkeit entspricht.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.