Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
2 BvR 326/20 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2020:rk20200310.2bvr032620 Généré par l'IA

Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint due to lack of reasoned argument and denial of lawyer appointment for lack of objective necessity

Numéro de cause 2 BvR 326/20
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Allemagne (DE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Irrecevable (Inadmissible)
Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The Federal Constitutional Court refused to accept a constitutional complaint for decision and denied the applicant’s request for leave to retain legal counsel, resulting in the applicant’s defeat. The dispute involved a constitutional challenge against a decision whose specific subject matter is not detailed in the order, but which was dismissed during the admissibility review. The court held that the complaint was obviously inadmissible under § 93a(2) BVerfGG due to significant deficiencies in its legal justification, and the request for a lawyer under § 22(1) sentence 4 BVerfGG was rejected because the applicant failed to demonstrate that such representation was objectively necessary for the administration of justice.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 22 Abs. 1 Satz 4 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint due to lack of reasoned argument and denial of lawyer appointment for lack of objective necessity: The dispute involved a constitutional challenge against a decision whose specific subject matter is not detailed in the order, but which was dismissed during the admissibility review. The court held that the complaint was obviously inadmissible under § 93a(2) BVerfGG due to significant deficiencies in its legal justification, and the request for a lawyer under § 22(1) sentence 4 BVerfGG was rejected because the applicant failed to demonstrate that such representation was objectively necessary for the administration of justice.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
motivation insuffisante des griefs constitutionnels désignation d'un conseil juridique objet du litige argumentation motivée moyens invocables représentation légale

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG
Main ground for the decision not to accept the constitutional complaint for decision due to obvious inadmissibility.
§ 22 Abs. 1 Satz 4 BVerfGG
Procedural rule applied to reject the request for the admission of a legal assistant.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Basis for waiving a further detailed reasoning in the decision.

Jurisprudence citée

Généré par l'IA
BVerfGE 68, 360
hierzu BVerfGE 68, 360 ; BVerfGK 13, 171 ).
Généré par l'IA
2 BvR 327/20
Rejection of constitutional complaint as evidently inadmissible due to insufficient legal reasoning
1 BvR 781/17
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint due to lack of qualified representation under § 22 BVerfGG
2 BvR 307/21
Constitutional complaint inadmissible for lack of sufficient reasoning and failure to address prior decision grounds
1 BvR 380/26
Constitutional complaint inadmissible for lack of substantiation; denial of legal assistant admission absent objective utility
1 BvR 1721/09
Constitutional complaint rejected for procedural inadmissibility without reasoned decision

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Main ground for the decision not to accept the constitutional complaint for decision due to obvious inadmissibility.

§ 22 Abs. 1 Satz 4 BVerfGG

Procedural rule applied to reject the request for the admission of a legal assistant.

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Basis for waiving a further detailed reasoning in the decision.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

Nichtannahme einer wegen Begründungsmängeln offensichtlich unzulässigen Verfassungsbeschwerde - Ablehnung der Beistandszulassung mangels Sachdienlichkeit

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

Damit erledigt sich der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung.

Der Antrag auf Zulassung eines Beistandes wird abgelehnt.

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist gemäß § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG nicht zur Entscheidung anzunehmen, da sie wegen ihrer Begründungsmängel offensichtlich unzulässig ist.

Der Antrag auf Zulassung eines Beistandes nach § 22 Abs. 1 Satz 4 BVerfGG ist abzulehnen, weil weder vorgetragen noch ersichtlich ist, dass die in das pflichtgemäße Ermessen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts gestellte Zulassung objektiv sachdienlich ist (vgl. hierzu BVerfGE 68, 360 ; BVerfGK 13, 171 ).

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.