Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
1 BvQ 30/20 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2020:qk20200410.1bvq003020 Généré par l'IA

Interim relief against Corona ordinances: Inadmissibility for failure to demonstrate individual fundamental rights impact via cross-reference to unrelated application

Numéro de cause 1 BvQ 30/20
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 rejected a request for interim relief as inadmissible, ruling in favor of the state authorities. The applicant sought an injunction against state government ordinances implementing coronavirus restrictions, but the court held that the application failed to meet the statutory requirements for interim protection under § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG. The dispute centered on the admissibility of the procedural filing, where the applicant merely cross-referenced the reasoning of a separate, unrelated applicant rather than demonstrating a personal impact on their own fundamental rights or equivalent rights. Consequently, the court determined that such a lack of individualized argumentation regarding specific fundamental rights violations rendered the request inadmissible.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG; Interim relief against Corona ordinances: Inadmissibility for failure to demonstrate individual fundamental rights impact via cross-reference to unrelated application: The applicant sought an injunction against state government ordinances implementing coronavirus restrictions, but the court held that the application failed to meet the statutory requirements for interim protection under § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG. The dispute centered on the admissibility of the procedural filing, where the applicant merely cross-referenced the reasoning of a separate, unrelated applicant rather than demonstrating a personal impact on their own fundamental rights or equivalent rights. Consequently, the court determined that such a lack of individualized argumentation regarding specific fundamental rights violations rendered the request inadmissible.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
droits fondamentaux référé état d'urgence violation de garanties procédurales exigence constitutionnelle prétention légale

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG
Serves as the main ground for rejecting the request because the applicant failed to demonstrate the prerequisites for interim relief as required by this provision.
Généré par l'IA
1 BvQ 26/20
Interim relief against state coronavirus decrees: inadmissibility due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies and lack of substantiated personal rights infringement.
1 BvR 829/20
Constitutional inadmissibility of challenge to coronavirus curfew regulation for failure to exhaust administrative judicial review
1 BvR 159/22
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint challenging assembly restrictions under a Corona ordinance due to failure to engage with legislative discretion jurisprudence
1 BvQ 73/20
Exclusion of Corona-recovered individuals from containment ordinance; constitutional complaint rejected for lack of subsidiarity of administrative judicial review
1 BvR 661/20
Inadmissibility of constitutional interim relief for assembly ban without prior exhaustion of administrative court remedies

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG

Serves as the main ground for rejecting the request because the applicant failed to demonstrate the prerequisites for interim relief as required by this provision.

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

Unzulässiger Antrag auf Erlass von einstweiligen Anordnungen gegen Corona-Verordnungen der Landesregierungen - Tenorbegründung - unzureichende Antragsbegründung bei bloßer Bezugnahme auf gleichgelagerten eA-Antrag

[TENOR]

Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung wird abgelehnt. Er ist unzulässig, weil der Antragsteller die Voraussetzungen für den Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung nach § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG nicht darlegt. Seine bloße Bezugnahme auf die Antragsbegründung einer anderen Antragstellerin in einem anderen Verfahren genügt dafür nicht, insbesondere weil der Antragsteller damit eine Betroffenheit in eigenen Grundrechten oder grundrechtsgleichen Rechten nicht aufzeigt.

[GRUENDE]

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.