Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 2279/22 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2023:rk20230117.1bvr227922 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional complaint refused for insufficient substantiation of fundamental rights and chamber composition claims

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 2279/22
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 issued a non-acceptance decision, refusing to take up the constitutional complaint for decision and confirming the chamber's lawful composition. The dispute involved a petitioner who challenged a lower court decision with insufficiently substantiated fundamental rights complaints and a separate allegation regarding the improper composition of the judicial chamber. The Court held that it is not required to review chamber composition ex officio for the right to a lawfully constituted court under Article 101(1) sentence 2 of the Basic Law unless specific reasons for doubt are presented, and found no such reasons in the record; consequently, the complaint was deemed inadmissible for lack of sufficient substantiation.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Constitutional complaint refused for insufficient substantiation of fundamental rights and chamber composition claims: The dispute involved a petitioner who challenged a lower court decision with insufficiently substantiated fundamental rights complaints and a separate allegation regarding the improper composition of the judicial chamber. The Court held that it is not required to review chamber composition ex officio for the right to a lawfully constituted court under Article 101(1) sentence 2 of the Basic Law unless specific reasons for doubt are presented, and found no such reasons in the record; consequently, the complaint was deemed inadmissible for lack of sufficient substantiation.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
censure di diritto costituzionale diritti fondamentali sindacato giurisdizionale questioni processuali oggetto della lite diritto di essere sentito

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a detailed reasoning for the non-acceptance decision.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 131, 230
BVerfGE 131, 230 m.w.N.; BVerfG, Beschluss des Zweiten Senats vom 6.
2 BvR 3/21
Constitutional complaint rejecting chamber composition challenge under Art. 101(1) GG due to lack of serious doubt regarding assigned judges
2 BvR 966/21
Constitutional complaint rejecting constitutional chamber composition challenge under Article 101(1) sentence 2 GG
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 963/16
Constitutional complaint rejected for failure to substantiate fundamental rights violation
2 BvR 2082/11
Non-acceptance of constitutional complaint for lack of substantive reasoning in chamber decision
2 BvR 1098/11
Constitutional complaint over refusal of a substantive decision by a chamber of the Federal Constitutional Court
2 BvR 1607/13
Constitutional complaint over unreasoned non-acceptance; scope of mandatory reasoning duties for Chamber decisions
2 BvR 1089/18
Constitutional complaint not accepted for decision without reasoning

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a detailed reasoning for the non-acceptance 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 - ordnungsgemäße Kammerbesetzung

[TENOR]

Die 2. Kammer des Ersten Senats des Bundesverfassungsgerichts ist ordnungsgemäß besetzt.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Die beschwerdeführende Person hat neben nicht hinreichend substantiierten Grundrechtsrügen auch eine Besetzungsrüge erhoben. Die Kammer hat die ordnungsgemäße Besetzung zur Wahrung des Anspruchs aus Art. 101 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG von Amts wegen jedoch nur zu prüfen, soweit hierzu Anlass besteht (vgl. BVerfGE 131, 230 m.w.N.; BVerfG, Beschluss des Zweiten Senats vom 6. Oktober 2020 - 2 BvC 32/19 -, Rn. 3). Das ist hier nicht der Fall. Es sind nicht ansatzweise Gründe dafür vorgetragen, um an einer ordnungsgemäßen Kammerbesetzung zu zweifeln (vgl. BVerfG, Beschlüsse der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 12. März 2021 - 2 BvR 3/21 -, Rn. 3, und vom 14. September 2021 - 2 BvR 966/21 -, Rn. 3).

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.