Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 1687/23, 1 BvR 1750/23 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2023:rk20231016.1bvr168723 Generato dall'IA

Gender-based bias: recusal of judges not justified by their sex

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 1687/23, 1 BvR 1750/23
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

In a non-acceptance decision, the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court dismissed two constitutional complaints and rejected the applicants' motions for recusal of the assigned judges as obviously inadmissible. The case involved an attempt to disqualify the judicial panel based solely on the gender of the assigned judges, which the court held did not constitute a valid basis for a suspicion of bias. Relying on the principle that gender alone does not establish preconceived notions and that obviously inadmissible recusal motions do not exclude the requested judges from the decision-making process, the court affirmed that no official statements were required prior to dismissal. The constitutional complaints were not accepted for further review pursuant to § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, leaving the decision final and unappealable.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Gender-based bias: recusal of judges not justified by their sex: The case involved an attempt to disqualify the judicial panel based solely on the gender of the assigned judges, which the court held did not constitute a valid basis for a suspicion of bias. Relying on the principle that gender alone does not establish preconceived notions and that obviously inadmissible recusal motions do not exclude the requested judges from the decision-making process, the court affirmed that no official statements were required prior to dismissal. The constitutional complaints were not accepted for further review pursuant to § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, leaving the decision final and unappealable.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
parzialità del giudice domanda di ricusazione discriminazione fondata sul sesso principio costituzionale uguaglianza nella legge legittimo sospetto di parzialità

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural rule explicitly cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a detailed legal reasoning for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaints.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 153, 72
BVerfGE 153, 72 ; stRspr).
1 BvR 2294/22
Constitutional complaint inadmissible for lack of subsidiarity where intersex complainant failed to exhaust lower-court recusal and address remedies
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 2320/23
Inadmissibility of recusal motion based solely on gender of judges
VI ZA 22/21
Judicial recusal: insufficient grounds for bias from unfavorable legal assessment; no duty to obtain official statements from challenged judges
2 BvR 1000/22
Inadmissibility of judicial recusal motion lacking credible basis for impartiality bias
2 BvR 2263/20
Recusal motion against judges in prior same-plaintiff proceedings manifestly lacks basis for suspicion of bias
2 BvR 246/23, 2 BvR 1847/23
Recusal of constitutional court judges and chamber composition: insufficient justification and rejection of institutional bias claims

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Procedural rule explicitly cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a detailed legal reasoning for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaints.

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 ohne weitere Begründung - Verwerfung offensichtlich unzulässiger Ablehnungsgesuche - Geschlecht der zur Entscheidung berufenen Richterinnen und Richter begründet keine Besorgnis der Befangenheit

[TENOR]

Die Ablehnungsgesuche gegen die zur Entscheidung über diese Verfassungsbeschwerden berufenen Richterinnen und Richter des Bundesverfassungsgerichts werden als unzulässig verworfen.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerden werden nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Die Ablehnungsgesuche sind offensichtlich unzulässig. Sie enthalten lediglich Ausführungen, die zur Begründung der Besorgnis der Befangenheit gänzlich ungeeignet sind. In einem solchen Fall sind die abgelehnten Richterinnen und Richter nicht von der Entscheidung über das offensichtlich unzulässige Ablehnungsgesuch ausgeschlossen; es bedarf dann auch keiner vorherigen Einholung von dienstlichen Stellungnahmen (vgl. BVerfGE 153, 72 ; stRspr). Das Geschlecht der zur Entscheidung berufenen Personen begründet für sich genommen noch nicht deren Voreingenommenheit (vgl. BVerfG, Beschluss der 3. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 21. März 2023 - 1 BvR 2294/22 -, Rn. 1).

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.