Interim injunction denied for lack of sufficient substantiation of alleged violation of the right to be heard

The Federal Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's motion for an interim injunction, ruling that the applicant failed to substantiate that the main constitutional complaint would be both admissible and not obviously unfounded. The dispute concerned an alleged violation of the right to be heard (audi alteram partem) in prior proceedings, where the applicant claimed procedural deficits without providing sufficient detail. The decisive legal standard required the applicant to demonstrate that the substantive claim was not obviously devoid of success; because the alleged violation of the right to be heard was not sufficiently substantiated, the court declined to grant the requested interim relief, leaving the challenged status quo in force.