Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
1 BvR 2846/19 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2020:rk20201105.1bvr284619 Généré par l'IA

Constitutional complaint on parallel proceedings; denial of admission under § 93d BVerfGG

Numéro de cause 1 BvR 2846/19
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 declined to hear the constitutional complaint, effectively upholding the lower court’s decision and denying the petitioner relief. The case involved a constitutional challenge to a judgment of parallel proceedings, with the petitioner likely contesting a criminal or administrative matter subject to concurrent litigation. The court found that the legal reasoning previously established by the same chamber in an earlier decision regarding a related case rendered the complaint unfounded, relying on the doctrine of parallel decisions to avoid redundant analysis; consequently, no further substantive reasoning was provided under § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, and the decision was declared final and unappealable.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Constitutional complaint on parallel proceedings; denial of admission under § 93d BVerfGG: The case involved a constitutional challenge to a judgment of parallel proceedings, with the petitioner likely contesting a criminal or administrative matter subject to concurrent litigation. The court found that the legal reasoning previously established by the same chamber in an earlier decision regarding a related case rendered the complaint unfounded, relying on the doctrine of parallel decisions to avoid redundant analysis; consequently, no further substantive reasoning was provided under § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, and the decision was declared final and unappealable.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
procédures connexes motivation insuffisante des griefs constitutionnels recours contre des décisions administratives dénonciation pénale doctrine juridique motivation sur le fond

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural basis cited in the dispositive for waiving further reasoning in the non-acceptance decision.

Jurisprudence citée

Généré par l'IA
1 BvR 2654/17
Retroactive statute replacing invalidated collective agreements in construction industry social schemes
Généré par l'IA
1 BvR 1319/20
Constitutional complaint rejected as parallel decision: dispensation with reasoning based on identical prior rulings under § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
1 BvR 1403/11
Constitutional complaint non-acceptance via parallel decision citing § 93d BVerfGG
1 BvR 1390/11
Constitutional complaint: Non-acceptance due to parallel decision, waiving justification under § 93d BVerfGG
1 BvR 1234/11
Non-acceptance of constitutional complaint based on parallel decision and waiver of further reasoning under § 93d Abs. 1 BVerfGG
1 BvR 1643/19
Constitutional complaint refused for lack of individual merit under § 93d BVerfGG as parallel decision

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Procedural basis cited in the dispositive for waiving further reasoning in the non-acceptance 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

Nichtannahmebeschluss: Parallelentscheidung

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Dem Erfolg der Verfassungsbeschwerde stehen die Erwägungen entgegen, welche die Kammer in dem Beschluss vom 11. August 2020 zu dem Aktenzeichen 1 BvR 2654/17 dargelegt hat und auf die verwiesen wird.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.