Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 175/23, 2 BvR 176/23 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2023:rk20230222.2bvr017523 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional complaints rejected for insufficient substantiation; warning on abuse fees for manifestly baseless filings

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 175/23, 2 BvR 176/23
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 (BVerfG) declined to accept two constitutional complaints for decision, finding them inadmissible, while also warning the complainants that future filings could result in abuse fees. The dispute involved a procedural challenge submitted to the constitutional court, which the court determined lacked sufficient substantive reasoning. The decisive legal basis for the refusal was the failure to meet the specific pleading requirements under Sections 23(1) sentence 2 and 92 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), rendering the complaints obviously inadequate; the court further cited Section 34(2) BVerfGG to note that filing manifestly empty complaints that hinder the court's duties may constitute an abuse of process subject to a fee.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 92 BVerfGG, § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, § 23 Abs. 1 S 2, 92 BVerfGG; Constitutional complaints rejected for insufficient substantiation; warning on abuse fees for manifestly baseless filings: The dispute involved a procedural challenge submitted to the constitutional court, which the court determined lacked sufficient substantive reasoning. The decisive legal basis for the refusal was the failure to meet the specific pleading requirements under Sections 23(1) sentence 2 and 92 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), rendering the complaints obviously inadequate; the court further cited Section 34(2) BVerfGG to note that filing manifestly empty complaints that hinder the court's duties may constitute an abuse of process subject to a fee.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali presupposto processuale abuso del processo spese legali motivazione nel merito presentazione di denunce penali

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG
The main ground for the verdict, explicitly cited in the first dispositive order to declare the constitutional complaints inadmissible.
§ 92 BVerfGG
1 Satz 2 Halbsatz 1, § 92 BVerfGG.
§ 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG
Cited in the dispositive to warn that an abuse fee may be imposed in future proceedings if the conditions for abuse are met.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural rule cited in the final dispositive order to justify the omission of further reasoning.
§ 23 Abs. 1 S 2, 92 BVerfGG
Procedural rules cited in the dispositive to establish that the complaints failed to meet the requirements for adequate substantiation.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 415/18
Inadmissibility of unsubstantiated constitutional complaints and abuse-of-process penalties
2 BvR 648/21
Constitutional complaint rejected for lack of substantiation; warning of abuse fee for manifestly unsubstantiated filings
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 269/21, 2 BvR 423/21, 2 BvR 424/21, 2 BvR 604/21
Inadmissibility of unsubstantiated constitutional complaints and potential imposition of abuse fees
2 BvR 22/23, 2 BvR 86/23
Constitutional complaints rejected for insufficient substantiation; threat of misuse fee for substantively empty appeals
2 BvR 1683/21
Unsubstantiated constitutional complaint inadmissible; warning on potential misuse fee for frivolous filings
2 BvR 1631/22, 2 BvR 1747/22, 2 BvR 1860/22, 2 BvR 209/23
Insufficiently substantiated constitutional complaints and threat of abuse fee
2 BvR 2211/22
Constitutional Complaint Rejected for Lack of Substantiation and Warning of Misuse Fee

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG

The main ground for the verdict, explicitly cited in the first dispositive order to declare the constitutional complaints inadmissible.

§ 23 Abs. 1 S 2, 92 BVerfGG

Procedural rules cited in the dispositive to establish that the complaints failed to meet the requirements for adequate substantiation.

§ 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Cited in the dispositive to warn that an abuse fee may be imposed in future proceedings if the conditions for abuse are met.

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Procedural rule cited in the final dispositive order to justify the omission of further reasoning.

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 zweier offensichtlich unzureichend begründeter Verfassungsbeschwerden (§§ 23 Abs 1 S 2, 92 BVerfGG) - Hinweis auf Möglichkeit der Auferlegung einer Missbrauchsgebühr

[TENOR]

Die Verfahren werden zur gemeinsam Entscheidung verbunden.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerden werden nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerden sind nicht zur Entscheidung anzunehmen (§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG), weil sie unzulässig sind. Sie genügen offensichtlich nicht den Anforderungen der § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Halbsatz 1, § 92 BVerfGG.

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; Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 31. Mai 2021 - 2 BvR 648/21 -, Rn. 2).

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.