Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 1519/24 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2024:rk20240719.1bvr151924 Generato dall'IA

Recusal motion rejected as manifestly inadmissible for lacking factual substantiation of partiality

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 1519/24
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 dismissed the constitutional complaint without further reasoning and rejected the petitioner's motion for recusal of the assigned judges as manifestly inadmissible, resulting in a final, non-appealable decision in favor of the court's procedural authority. The case involved a challenge to the composition of the adjudicating panel in a constitutional complaint proceeding, where the petitioner submitted a motion for recusal containing arguments entirely unsuitable to substantiate a suspicion of partiality. The court determined that when a recusal motion is manifestly inadmissible, the requested judges are not excluded from deciding on the motion itself, nor is there a requirement to seek prior official statements from them, citing established case law and relying on § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG to dispense with a detailed explanation.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Recusal motion rejected as manifestly inadmissible for lacking factual substantiation of partiality: The case involved a challenge to the composition of the adjudicating panel in a constitutional complaint proceeding, where the petitioner submitted a motion for recusal containing arguments entirely unsuitable to substantiate a suspicion of partiality. The court determined that when a recusal motion is manifestly inadmissible, the requested judges are not excluded from deciding on the motion itself, nor is there a requirement to seek prior official statements from them, citing established case law and relying on § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG to dispense with a detailed explanation.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
domanda di ricusazione motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali allegazione motivata casi di esclusione diritto alla risoluzione del contratto presupposto processuale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural rule applied to justify the omission of a detailed reasoning for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 153, 72
BVerfGE 153, 72 ; stRspr).
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 2299/20
Inadmissibility of judicial recusal motion lacking substantive justification
1 BvR 1452/16
Constitutional complaint and recusal motion: Inadmissibility of recusal without substantive partiality evidence and lack of acceptance criteria for constitutional complaint
1 BvR 1526/17
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint and recusal motion due to failure to substantiate bias and lack of acceptance criteria
1 BvR 2215/21
Recusal motion dismissed for lack of factual basis and speculation; constitutional complaint not admitted under § 93d BVerfGG
1 BvR 2635/21
Recusal motions lacking specific grounds of partiality and constitutional complaint failing substantiation requirements under BVerfGG § 92

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Procedural rule applied to justify the omission of a detailed reasoning for the non-acceptance of the constitutional 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 Verfassungsbeschwerde ohne weitere Begründung - Verwerfung eines offensichtlich unzulässigen Ablehnungsgesuchs

[TENOR]

Das Ablehnungsgesuch gegen die zur Entscheidung über diese Verfassungsbeschwerde berufenen Richterinnen und Richter des Bundesverfassungsgerichts wird als unzulässig verworfen.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Das Ablehnungsgesuch ist offensichtlich unzulässig. Es enthält 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).

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.