Constitutional complaint reinstatement request: failure to meet one-year filing limit and lack of fault-free delay under § 93 BVerfGG
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's request for reinstatement into the previous status and refused to admit her constitutional complaint for decision, leaving the dismissal of her underlying complaint in force. The dispute concerned the procedural admissibility of a constitutional complaint filed after the statutory one-month deadline had expired, where the applicant sought relief under the rules for curing missed deadlines. The decisive legal basis was Section 93 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG); the court held that the reinstatement application was inadmissible because it was not filed within one year of the missed deadline as required by Section 93(2) Sentence 5 BVerfGG, and the applicant failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the delay was without fault pursuant to Section 93(2) Sentence 1 BVerfGG.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 93 Abs. 2 Satz 5 BVerfGG, § 93 Abs. 2 Satz 1 BVerfGG; Constitutional complaint reinstatement request: failure to meet one-year filing limit and lack of fault-free delay under § 93 BVerfGG: The dispute concerned the procedural admissibility of a constitutional complaint filed after the statutory one-month deadline had expired, where the applicant sought relief under the rules for curing missed deadlines. The decisive legal basis was Section 93 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG); the court held that the reinstatement application was inadmissible because it was not filed within one year of the missed deadline as required by Section 93(2) Sentence 5 BVerfGG, and the applicant failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the delay was without fault pursuant to Section 93(2) Sentence 1 BVerfGG.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertPrimary ground for rejecting the reinstatement application because it was not filed within one year of the missed deadline.
Secondary ground for rejecting the reinstatement application because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the delay was without fault.
Volltext
Nichtannahmebeschluss: Unzulässigkeit eines Antrags auf Wiedereinsetzung in die Monatsfrist des § 93 Abs 1 S 1 BVerfGG nach Ablauf eines Jahres (§ 93 Abs 2 S 5 BVerfGG) - Tenorbegründung
[TENOR]
Der Antrag auf Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand wird abgelehnt, da er nicht innerhalb eines Jahres nach dem Ende der versäumten Frist gestellt worden ist (vgl. § 93 Abs. 2 Satz 5 BVerfGG). Im Übrigen hat die Beschwerdeführerin nicht ausreichend dargelegt, dass sie ohne Verschulden an der Einhaltung der Frist gehindert war (vgl. § 93 Abs. 2 Satz 1 BVerfGG).
Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.
Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.