Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 828/21 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2022:rk20220511.1bvr082821 Generato dall'IA

Denial of expense reimbursement following dismissal of constitutional complaint for insufficient substantiation

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 828/21
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 hear the constitutional complaint and rejected the applicant’s request for reimbursement of necessary expenses, resulting in a complete dismissal in favor of the state. The case involved a procedural challenge regarding the admissibility of a constitutional complaint, specifically addressing whether the petitioner was entitled to cost recovery when the initial filing was legally defective. The Court held that the complaint was inadmissible under §§ 23(1) sentence 2 and 92 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG) because it failed to meet the statutory requirements for sufficient substantiation. Furthermore, the request for expense reimbursement was denied under § 34a(3) BVerfGG, as equitable principles do not support costs when the complaint was inadmissible from the time of its filing.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 92 BVerfGG, § 34a Absatz 3 BVerfGG; Denial of expense reimbursement following dismissal of constitutional complaint for insufficient substantiation: The case involved a procedural challenge regarding the admissibility of a constitutional complaint, specifically addressing whether the petitioner was entitled to cost recovery when the initial filing was legally defective. The Court held that the complaint was inadmissible under §§ 23(1) sentence 2 and 92 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG) because it failed to meet the statutory requirements for sufficient substantiation. Furthermore, the request for expense reimbursement was denied under § 34a(3) BVerfGG, as equitable principles do not support costs when the complaint was inadmissible from the time of its filing.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
rimborso delle spese motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali recupero dei costi momento del deposito presupposto processuale mancanza di prova

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 92 BVerfGG
Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist unzulässig, weil sie den gesetzlichen Anforderungen der § 23 Absatz 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG an eine hinreichend substantiierte Begründung nicht genügt.
§ 34a Absatz 3 BVerfGG
Basis for the rejection of the request for reimbursement of necessary expenses due to the initial inadmissibility of the complaint.
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 262/19
Denial of litigation expense reimbursement due to failure to exhaust legal remedies before filing constitutional complaint
2 BvR 1402/23
Denial of expense reimbursement for withdrawn constitutional complaint based on initial inadmissibility and lack of fairness
1 BvR 2684/17
Denial of out-of-pocket expense reimbursement after withdrawal of unsubstantiated constitutional complaint
2 BvR 1276/20
Reimbursement of costs in constitutional complaint dismissed due to failure to exhaust the hearing remedy (Anhörungsrüge) under § 90 Abs. 2 BVerfGG
1 BvR 796/14
Denial of reimbursement for litigation expenses of non-admitted constitutional complaint and rejected interim relief based on Billigkeit under § 34a Abs. 3 BVerfGG

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 34a Absatz 3 BVerfGG

Basis for the rejection of the request for reimbursement of necessary expenses due to the initial inadmissibility of the 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 wegen Substantiierungsmängeln unzulässigen Verfassungsbeschwerde - keine Auslagenerstattung bei anfänglicher Unzulässigkeit der Verfassungsbeschwerde

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

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

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist unzulässig, weil sie den gesetzlichen Anforderungen der § 23 Absatz 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG an eine hinreichend substantiierte Begründung nicht genügt.

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

Der Antrag auf Erstattung der notwendigen Auslagen hat keinen Erfolg, weil die Voraussetzungen nach § 34a Absatz 3 BVerfGG nicht vorliegen. Eine Erstattung entspricht hier nicht der Billigkeit, weil die Verfassungsbeschwerde vom Zeitpunkt ihrer Einlegung an unzulässig war.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.