Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
1 BvR 2831/15, 1 BvR 2861/15, 1 BvR 2884/15, 1 BvR 2928/15, 1 BvR 2943/15, 1 BvR 2944/15, 1 BvR 2983/15, 1 BvR 3039/15, 1 BvR 3040/15, 1 BvR 3041/15, 1 BvR 3042/15, 1 BvR 3183/15, 1 BvR 3241/15, 1 BvR 454/16 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2016:rk20160323.1bvr283115 KI-generiert

Admissibility of constitutional complaints challenging equality of legal protection: requirement to substantiate personal compensation risk under attorney fee notices

Geschäftsnummer 1 BvR 2831/15, 1 BvR 2861/15, 1 BvR 2884/15, 1 BvR 2928/15, 1 BvR 2943/15, 1 BvR 2944/15, 1 BvR 2983/15, 1 BvR 3039/15, 1 BvR 3040/15, 1 BvR 3041/15, 1 BvR 3042/15, 1 BvR 3183/15, 1 BvR 3241/15, 1 BvR 454/16
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Nichteintreten / Unzulässig (Inadmissible)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Federal Constitutional Court refused to accept multiple constitutional complaints for review, ruling in favor of the respondent state by finding the petitions inadmissible. The complainants challenged a decision on the basis that it violated their equality of legal protection, specifically alleging an undue burden under the attorney-client risk-sharing mechanism in the advisory proceedings law. The Court held that the complaints failed to meet the substantive requirements of §§ 23(1) sentence 2, 92 BVerfGG because the petitioners did not sufficiently demonstrate that their legal representatives had issued the required notice under § 8a(4) sentence 1 BerHG, which was necessary to establish that the complainants personally bore a compensation risk and thus were individually affected in their right to legal equality, citing precedent BVerfGE 129, 269 and 112, 304.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, §§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, 92 BVerfGG; Admissibility of constitutional complaints challenging equality of legal protection: requirement to substantiate personal compensation risk under attorney fee notices: The complainants challenged a decision on the basis that it violated their equality of legal protection, specifically alleging an undue burden under the attorney-client risk-sharing mechanism in the advisory proceedings law. The Court held that the complaints failed to meet the substantive requirements of §§ 23(1) sentence 2, 92 BVerfGG because the petitioners did not sufficiently demonstrate that their legal representatives had issued the required notice under § 8a(4) sentence 1 BerHG, which was necessary to establish that the complainants personally bore a compensation risk and thus were individually affected in their right to legal equality, citing precedent BVerfGE 129, 269 and 112, 304.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
verfassungsmässige Rechtsgleichheit ungenügende Substantiierung von Grundrechtsverletzungen Gesetzlicher Schutz Petitionsrecht materielle Voraussetzungen staatliche Entschädigung

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Cited as the procedural rule permitting the court to omit a further detailed explanation of the decision.
§§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, 92 BVerfGG
Cited as the basis for finding that the constitutional complaints failed to meet the substantive requirements and were therefore inadmissible.

Zitierte Rechtsprechung

KI-generiert
BVerfGE 129, 269
BVerfGE 129, 269 ; 112, 304 ; BVerfGK 5, 170 ).
KI-generiert
1 BvR 496/16
Constitutional complaint lacking substantiation of fee risk under § 8a Abs. 4 S. 1 BerHG to establish injury to equal protection in legal access.
1 BvR 1544/17
Constitutional complaint over equal legal protection: failure to substantiate personal fee risk due to missing § 8a Abs. 4 BerHG warning
2 BvR 1683/21
Unsubstantiated constitutional complaint inadmissible; warning on potential misuse fee for frivolous filings
2 BvR 1854/21, 2 BvR 1855/21, 2 BvR 1856/21, 2 BvR 1857/21, 2 BvR 1858/21, 2 BvR 1859/21, 2 BvR 1966/21, 2 BvR 1974/21, 2 BvR 2091/21
Manifestly unsubstantiated constitutional complaints: procedural inadmissibility and risk of abuse fee under § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG
2 BvR 382/25, 2 BvR 383/25, 2 BvR 384/25
Constitutional complaints in compelled litigation without prior ordinary court proceedings and inadequate substantiation

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, 92 BVerfGG

Cited as the basis for finding that the constitutional complaints failed to meet the substantive requirements and were therefore inadmissible.

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Cited as the procedural rule permitting the court to omit a further detailed explanation of 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: Verletzung der Rechtsschutzgleichheit nicht hinreichend substantiiert gerügt, wenn Vergütungsrisiko des Mandanten (hier: gem § 8a Abs 4 S 1 BeratHiG) nicht dargelegt wurde

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerden genügen nicht den Substantiierungsanforderungen der §§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, 92 BVerfGG. Da nicht ersichtlich ist, dass der Verfahrensbevollmächtigte den Beschwerdeführern bei der Mandatsübernahme einen Hinweis gemäß § 8a Abs. 4 Satz 1 BerHG erteilt hat, ist nicht dargelegt, dass die Beschwerdeführer ein Vergütungsrisiko tragen. Von daher ist eine Betroffenheit der Beschwerdeführer selbst in ihrer Rechtsschutzgleichheit nicht erkennbar (vgl. BVerfGE 129, 269 ; 112, 304 ; BVerfGK 5, 170 ).

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.