Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
2 BvQ 89/20 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2020:qk20201117.2bvq008920 Généré par l'IA

Constitutional complaint against forced eviction: failure to substantiate admissibility and non-obvious unfoundedness under § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG

Numéro de cause 2 BvQ 89/20
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 (BVerfG) rejected an application for an interim injunction, leaving the decisions of the lower courts in force. The case involved a request for an emergency order to prevent a forced eviction, where the applicants had challenged rulings from the local court and the district court regarding the enforcement of a title. The Court deemed the application inadmissible under § 32 Abs. 1 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG) because the applicants failed to provide a sufficiently substantiated argument demonstrating that a constitutional complaint would be admissible and not obviously unfounded, thus requiring a detailed presentation of the specific constitutional rights allegedly violated and why the ordinary legal remedies were exhausted or ineffective.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG; Constitutional complaint against forced eviction: failure to substantiate admissibility and non-obvious unfoundedness under § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG: The case involved a request for an emergency order to prevent a forced eviction, where the applicants had challenged rulings from the local court and the district court regarding the enforcement of a title. The Court deemed the application inadmissible under § 32 Abs. 1 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG) because the applicants failed to provide a sufficiently substantiated argument demonstrating that a constitutional complaint would be admissible and not obviously unfounded, thus requiring a detailed presentation of the specific constitutional rights allegedly violated and why the ordinary legal remedies were exhausted or ineffective.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
exécution de l'expulsion motivation insuffisante des griefs constitutionnels voie d'exécution prétention abusive du bailleur ordonnance de nécessité inconstitutionnelle inexigibilité de l'exécution du renvoi

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG
Provision used to declare the application for an interim injunction inadmissible due to insufficient substantiation of the requirements.
Généré par l'IA
2 BvQ 113/21
Forced eviction: Sufficiency of argumentation on admissibility and merit of subsequent constitutional complaint for interim relief
2 BvR 46/20
Constitutional complaint against civil enforcement measures: insufficient factual and legal substantiation of alleged fundamental rights violation
1 BvR 2024/24
Constitutional admissibility of challenging eviction for non-exhaustion of hearing objection despite alleged Article 2(2) and Article 13(1) Grundgesetz violations
2 BvR 1341/16
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint challenging eviction due to insufficient substantiation of suicidal risk against medical evidence
1 BvR 2335/14
Tenant hardship defeating property rights claim in self-occupation eviction

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG

Provision used to declare the application for an interim injunction inadmissible due to insufficient substantiation of the requirements.

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

Ablehnung eines Eilantrags in einer Zwangsräumungssache - Erfolgsaussichten einer Verfassungsbeschwerde in der Hauptsache nicht hinreichend dargelegt

[TENOR]

Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung wird abgelehnt.

[GRUENDE]

Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung ist unzulässig. Es fehlt an einem hinreichend substantiierten Vortrag zu den Voraussetzungen von § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG, da die Antragsteller nicht substantiiert dargelegt haben, dass eine Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen die Beschlüsse des Amtsgerichts L… vom 20. August 2020 - 35 M M 768/20 - und des Landgerichts B… vom 6. Oktober 2020 - 51 T 313/20 - und vom 9. November 2020 - 51 T 313/20 - zulässig und nicht offensichtlich unbegründet wäre (vgl. BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 20. August 2015 - 1 BvQ 28/15 -, Rn. 2; Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 30. September 2015 - 2 BvQ 29/15 -, Rn. 2; Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 14. Dezember 2015 - 2 BvQ 45/15 -; Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 8. Februar 2016 - 2 BvQ 9/16 -).

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.