Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
1 BvR 1234/11 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2012:rk20120606.1bvr123411 KI-generiert

Non-acceptance of constitutional complaint based on parallel decision and waiver of further reasoning under § 93d Abs. 1 BVerfGG

Geschäftsnummer 1 BvR 1234/11
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Nichteintreten / Unzulässig (Inadmissible)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the constitutional complaint without a hearing, ruling it inadmissible and final. The dispute involved a parallel constitutional complaint that the court linked to a prior decision of its First Chamber dated May 29, 2012. The decisive legal basis for the dismissal was § 93d (1) sentence 3 of the German Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), which permits the court to refrain from providing a further legal justification for non-acceptance decisions, resulting in the exhaustion of the petitioner’s constitutional remedies.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Non-acceptance of constitutional complaint based on parallel decision and waiver of further reasoning under § 93d Abs. 1 BVerfGG: The dispute involved a parallel constitutional complaint that the court linked to a prior decision of its First Chamber dated May 29, 2012. The decisive legal basis for the dismissal was § 93d (1) sentence 3 of the German Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), which permits the court to refrain from providing a further legal justification for non-acceptance decisions, resulting in the exhaustion of the petitioner’s constitutional remedies.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
ungenügende Substantiierung von Grundrechtsverletzungen begründeter Entscheid verfassungsmässige Rechtsgleichheit Parlamentsrecht Rückzug des Rechtsbegehrens Streitgegenstand

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural rule applied to dispense with a further reasoning for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.

Zitierte Rechtsprechung

KI-generiert
1 BvR 640/11
BFH failure to refer EU tax finality questions to CJEU under Art. 267(3) TFEU and violation of right to a legally established judge under Art. 101(1) GG
KI-generiert
1 BvR 1390/11
Constitutional complaint: Non-acceptance due to parallel decision, waiving justification under § 93d BVerfGG
1 BvR 1403/11
Constitutional complaint non-acceptance via parallel decision citing § 93d BVerfGG
1 BvR 1819/15
Constitutional complaint against a parallel court decision declared inadmissible
1 BvR 1319/20
Constitutional complaint rejected as parallel decision: dispensation with reasoning based on identical prior rulings under § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
1 BvR 2318/14
Constitutional complaint rejected due to non-acceptance without reasoning under § 93d BVerfGG

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Procedural rule applied to dispense with a further reasoning for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

Nichtannahmebeschluss: Parallelentscheidung

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen (vgl. Beschluss der 1. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 29. Mai

2012 - 1 BvR 640/11).

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.