Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 174/23 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2023:rk20230301.1bvr017423 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional complaint against state constitutional court rulings rejected for lack of legal aid eligibility and insufficient substantiation of fundamental rights violations

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 174/23
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 Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (First Senate, First Chamber) dismissed the constitutional complaint without further reasoned explanation and rejected the applicant's motion for legal aid and appointment of a lawyer, thereby leaving the two decisions of the Berlin Constitutional Court in force. The applicant challenged two rulings from the Berlin Constitutional Court and sought to initiate constitutional proceedings, but failed to demonstrate that the intended litigation had a sufficient prospect of success. The Court found that the applicant did not substantiate or plausibly present a violation of fundamental rights or rights equivalent to fundamental rights, failing to meet the requirements for legal aid under § 114 Abs. 1 Satz 1 ZPO and the general standards for constitutional complaints, with the decision rendered final under § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 114 Abs. 1 Satz 1 ZPO, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Constitutional complaint against state constitutional court rulings rejected for lack of legal aid eligibility and insufficient substantiation of fundamental rights violations: The applicant challenged two rulings from the Berlin Constitutional Court and sought to initiate constitutional proceedings, but failed to demonstrate that the intended litigation had a sufficient prospect of success. The Court found that the applicant did not substantiate or plausibly present a violation of fundamental rights or rights equivalent to fundamental rights, failing to meet the requirements for legal aid under § 114 Abs. 1 Satz 1 ZPO and the general standards for constitutional complaints, with the decision rendered final under § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
procedura di gratuito patrocinio diritti fondamentali motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali uguaglianza giuridica costituzionale soccorso d'emergenza costituzionale accertamento giudiziale di diritti

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 114 Abs. 1 Satz 1 ZPO
Der Beschwerdeführer legt bereits nicht dar, dass seine beabsichtigte Rechtsverfolgung hinreichende Aussicht auf Erfolg entsprechend § 114 Abs. 1 Satz 1 ZPO bietet.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural basis cited for the decision to refrain from providing a further detailed explanation of the dismissal.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 1, 109
BVerfGE 1, 109 ; 92, 122 ; BVerfG, Beschluss der 1.
1 BvR 2014/16
Denial of constitutional legal aid for social insurance complaints lacking substantive merits and procedural completeness
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 1545/22
Constitutional complaint rejected for failure to demonstrate prospect of success under legal aid requirements
1 BvR 2693/25
Denial of legal aid for constitutional complaint due to lack of plausible fundamental rights violation
1 BvR 310/23
Constitutional complaint lacking sufficient prospect of success: rejection of legal aid and non-acceptance for failure to substantiate fundamental rights violation
1 BvR 2217/21
Rejection of legal aid and constitutional complaint for failure to substantiate prospects of success and fundamental rights violation
1 BvR 2410/17
Denial of legal aid for constitutional complaint due to failure to substantiate prospects of success regarding fundamental rights violations

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Procedural basis cited for the decision to refrain from providing a further detailed explanation of the dismissal.

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 Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen zwei Beschlüsse des VerfGH Berlin ohne weitere Begründung - Ablehnung eines PKH-Antrags im Verfassungsbeschwerdeverfahren

[TENOR]

Der Antrag auf Bewilligung von Prozesskostenhilfe und Beiordnung eines Rechtsanwalts wird abgelehnt, weil die beabsichtigte Rechtsverfolgung keine hinreichende Aussicht auf Erfolg bietet.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Der Antrag auf Bewilligung von Prozesskostenhilfe war abzulehnen. Die erforderlichen Voraussetzungen für die Bewilligung von Prozesskostenhilfe (vgl. BVerfGE 1, 109 ; 92, 122 ; BVerfG, Beschluss der 1. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 2. Dezember 2016 - 1 BvR 2014/16 -) sind nicht ersichtlich. Der Beschwerdeführer legt bereits nicht dar, dass seine beabsichtigte Rechtsverfolgung hinreichende Aussicht auf Erfolg entsprechend § 114 Abs. 1 Satz 1 ZPO bietet. Die Möglichkeit der Verletzung von Grundrechten oder grundrechtsgleichen Rechten ist vorliegend weder substantiiert und schlüssig dargelegt noch sonst ersichtlich.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.