Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 2480/25 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2025:rk20251206.1bvr248025 Generato dall'IA

Recusal request rejected for lacking substantive grounds to demonstrate judicial bias

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 2480/25
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 a reasoned decision and rejected the recusal request against a judge as inadmissible, with the latter ruling rendering the matter final and unappealable. The case involved a procedural challenge wherein the petitioner sought to recuse specific court personnel and filed a constitutional complaint, but the recusal motion against one judge was deemed to contain only arguments wholly unsuitable to substantiate a reasonable suspicion of bias. The court applied § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG to waive a further justification for the non-acceptance of the main complaint, relying on the doctrine that unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient to demonstrate judicial bias.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Recusal request rejected for lacking substantive grounds to demonstrate judicial bias: The case involved a procedural challenge wherein the petitioner sought to recuse specific court personnel and filed a constitutional complaint, but the recusal motion against one judge was deemed to contain only arguments wholly unsuitable to substantiate a reasonable suspicion of bias. The court applied § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG to waive a further justification for the non-acceptance of the main complaint, relying on the doctrine that unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient to demonstrate judicial bias.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
domanda di ricusazione parzialità del giudice motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali fondatezza materiale diritto alla risoluzione del contratto azione di separazione

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural basis for waiving the written justification for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 159, 26
BVerfGE 159, 26 ) bedarf es einer Entscheidung über das Ablehnungsgesuch gegen den Präsidenten Harbarth und den Richter Eifert nicht.
BVerfGE 153, 72
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 754/17
Constitutional complaint and judicial recusal dismissed for lack of adequate substantiation of bias and inadmissibility
2 BvR 1624/22
Recusal motion and constitutional complaint rejected for lack of admissible bias grounds and insufficient legal argumentation
1 BvR 2133/25
Constitutional complaint and recusal motion for unsubstantiated bias dismissed for lack of suitable grounds
2 BvR 1182/20
Constitutional complaint and recusal request dismissed for lack of suitable grounds establishing bias and manifest inadmissibility
2 BvR 1622/22
Unsubstantiated recusal motion and insufficiently reasoned constitutional complaint

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Procedural basis for waiving the written justification 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 Richterin Härtel wird als unzulässig verworfen.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Mangels ihrer Berufung zur Entscheidung im vorliegenden Verfahren (vgl. BVerfGE 159, 26 ) bedarf es einer Entscheidung über das Ablehnungsgesuch gegen den Präsidenten Harbarth und den Richter Eifert nicht. Das Ablehnungsgesuch gegen die Richterin Härtel ist als unzulässig zu verwerfen, da es lediglich Ausführungen enthält, die zur Begründung der Besorgnis der Befangenheit gänzlich ungeeignet sind (vgl. BVerfGE 153, 72 ).

Von einer Begründung der Nichtannahme der Verfassungsbeschwerde zur Entscheidung wird nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.