Interim relief against assembly ban: sufficiency of substantiation under § 32(1) BVerfGG
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's request for interim relief, finding that the statutory prerequisites were not sufficiently substantiated; consequently, the challenged assembly ban remains in effect. The dispute concerned a preliminary application for an interim order challenging a ban on a public assembly. The decisive legal basis for the rejection was Section 32(1) of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), which requires a detailed demonstration of the requirements for interim relief; the court held that the applicant failed to provide adequate reasoning to meet this burden.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG; Interim relief against assembly ban: sufficiency of substantiation under § 32(1) BVerfGG: The dispute concerned a preliminary application for an interim order challenging a ban on a public assembly. The decisive legal basis for the rejection was Section 32(1) of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), which requires a detailed demonstration of the requirements for interim relief; the court held that the applicant failed to provide adequate reasoning to meet this burden.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertProvision cited as the basis for rejecting the request for interim relief due to insufficient substantiation of the statutory prerequisites.
Volltext
Eilantrag gegen Versammlungsverbot erfolglos - unzureichende Antragsbegründung - Tenorbegründung
[TENOR]
Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung wird abgelehnt, weil die Voraussetzungen des § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG vom Antragsteller nicht ausreichend dargetan sind.
[GRUENDE]
Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.