Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint against child pornography regulation for insufficient argumentation and violation of subsidiarity
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) dismissed the constitutional complaint as inadmissible, with no further reasoning provided under § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG. The dispute concerned a challenge against Article 1 of the Act on Combating Child Pornography in Communication Networks (KPKBG) of 17 February 2010, filed as a constitutional complaint. The complaint failed because it did not meet the mandatory requirements for legal argumentation under § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 and § 92 BVerfGG and violated the principle of subsidiarity under § 90 Abs. 2 Satz 1 BVerfGG, which requires exhaustion of ordinary legal remedies prior to filing with the constitutional court.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 92 BVerfGG, § 90 Abs. 2 Satz 1 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Halbsatz 1 BVerfGG; Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint against child pornography regulation for insufficient argumentation and violation of subsidiarity: 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG. The dispute concerned a challenge against Article 1 of the Act on Combating Child Pornography in Communication Networks (KPKBG) of 17 February 2010, filed as a constitutional complaint. The complaint failed because it did not meet the mandatory requirements for legal argumentation under § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 and § 92 BVerfGG and violated the principle of subsidiarity under § 90 Abs. 2 Satz 1 BVerfGG, which requires exhaustion of ordinary legal remedies prior to filing with the constitutional court.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertCited in the dispositive to establish that the constitutional complaint is inadmissible due to insufficient legal argumentation.
Cited in the dispositive to support the finding of inadmissibility on the grounds that the complaint did not meet the specific content requirements for such petitions.
Cited in the dispositive to declare the complaint inadmissible because it violated the principle of subsidiarity by failing to exhaust ordinary legal remedies.
Cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a further detailed reasoning for the decision.
Volltext
Nichtannahmebeschluss: Mangels hinreichender Begründung und im Hinblick auf den Grundsatz der Subsidiarität unzulässige Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen Art 1 des Gesetzes zur Bekämpfung der Kinderpornographie in Kommunikationsnetzen vom 17.02.2010 (juris: KPKBG)
[GRUENDE]
Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist unzulässig, weil sie nicht den Begründungsanforderungen gemäß § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Halbsatz 1
und § 92 BVerfGG genügt und ihr der Grundsatz der Subsidiarität gemäß § 90 Abs. 2 Satz 1 BVerfGG entgegensteht.
Von einer weiteren Begründung wird nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.
Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.