Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
1 BvR 2149/10 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2011:rk20110330.1bvr214910 KI-generiert

Constitutional complaint dismissed as inadmissible due to lack of substantive engagement with administrative court's reasoning on property encumbrance

Geschäftsnummer 1 BvR 2149/10
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Nichteintreten / Unzulässig (Inadmissible)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The German Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the constitutional complaint as inadmissible, resulting in the respondents' victory and leaving the lower court's administrative order in force. The dispute concerned a challenge to an administrative court's judgment, which had enforced a property encumbrance or seizure order, where the petitioners alleged violations of their fundamental rights. The decision was grounded in procedural law, specifically §§ 23(1) sentence 2 and 92 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), which mandate that constitutional complaints must contain a detailed justification engaging with the specific legal reasoning of the lower courts; the petitioners failed this requirement by ignoring the administrative court's substantive arguments and failing to submit the referenced interim injunction, rendering the complaint insufficiently substantiated.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, § 23 Abs 1 S 2 BVerfGG, § 92 BVerfGG; Constitutional complaint dismissed as inadmissible due to lack of substantive engagement with administrative court's reasoning on property encumbrance: The dispute concerned a challenge to an administrative court's judgment, which had enforced a property encumbrance or seizure order, where the petitioners alleged violations of their fundamental rights. The decision was grounded in procedural law, specifically §§ 23(1) sentence 2 and 92 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), which mandate that constitutional complaints must contain a detailed justification engaging with the specific legal reasoning of the lower courts; the petitioners failed this requirement by ignoring the administrative court's substantive arguments and failing to submit the referenced interim injunction, rendering the complaint insufficiently substantiated.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Verwaltungsbeschwerde verfassungsmässige Anforderung Verfassungsbeschwerde im Ausland Verletzung von Verfahrensrechten Eigentumsrecht materielle Begründetheit

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BVerfGG
Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist unzulässig, weil die Begründung nicht den sich aus § 92, § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BVerfGG ergebenden Anforderungen (vgl.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a further detailed reasoning for the decision.
§ 23 Abs 1 S 2 BVerfGG
Cited in the dispositive to establish the substantive requirement for a sufficiently substantiated constitutional complaint, which the petitioners failed to meet.
§ 92 BVerfGG
Cited in the dispositive as the procedural rule governing the requirements for the justification of a constitutional complaint, leading to the finding of inadmissibility.

Zitierte Rechtsprechung

KI-generiert
1 BvR 2704/10
Constitutional complaint against lower-court evidentiary assessment dismissed for lack of substantive reasoning; abuse fee imposed on counsel for substantively empty petition.
KI-generiert
1 BvR 963/16
Constitutional complaint rejected for failure to substantiate fundamental rights violation
1 BvR 2568/24
Constitutional complaint dismissed for insufficient substantiation of lower court reasoning
1 BvR 471/21
Constitutional complaint rejected as manifestly inadmissible for failure to identify a concrete act of state authority and substantiate a constitutional grievance.
2 BvR 327/20
Rejection of constitutional complaint as evidently inadmissible due to insufficient legal reasoning
1 BvR 1149/10
Constitutional complaint inadmissible for failure to substantiate alleged violation of fundamental rights via specific reference to § 116 ZPO enforcement proceedings

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 23 Abs 1 S 2 BVerfGG

Cited in the dispositive to establish the substantive requirement for a sufficiently substantiated constitutional complaint, which the petitioners failed to meet.

§ 92 BVerfGG

Cited in the dispositive as the procedural rule governing the requirements for the justification of a constitutional complaint, leading to the finding of inadmissibility.

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a further detailed reasoning for the decision.

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: Unzureichende Substantiierung einer Verfassungsbeschwerde (§§ 23 Abs 1 S 2, 92 BVerfGG) führt zur Unzulässigkeit

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist unzulässig, weil die Begründung nicht den sich aus § 92, § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BVerfGG ergebenden Anforderungen (vgl. dazu etwa BVerfG, Beschluss der 1. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 8. Dezember 2010 - 1 BvR 2704/10 -, www.bverfg.de, Rn. 2) gerecht wird. Die Begründung lässt insbesondere jegliche Auseinandersetzung mit den eingehenden Ausführungen des Verwaltungsgerichtshofs zur materiellen Rechtmäßigkeit des angegriffenen Besitzeinweisungsbeschlusses vermissen. Den vom Verwaltungsgericht in dem angegriffenen Urteil in Bezug genommenen Beschluss im Verfahren des vorläufigen Rechtsschutzes haben die Beschwerdeführer nicht vorgelegt.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.