Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
1 BvR 1643/19 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2020:rk20201105.1bvr164319 Généré par l'IA

Constitutional complaint refused for lack of individual merit under § 93d BVerfGG as parallel decision

Numéro de cause 1 BvR 1643/19
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 accept the constitutional complaint for decision, leaving the lower court's judgment in force. The dispute concerned a parallel constitutional complaint where the complainant challenged a prior legal determination, but the Court found no basis to proceed separately from established precedents. Relying on its prior reasoning in comparable cases, the Chamber dismissed the complaint without providing a further substantive justification under Section 93d(1) sentence 3 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, rendering the non-acceptance decision unappealable.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Constitutional complaint refused for lack of individual merit under § 93d BVerfGG as parallel decision: The dispute concerned a parallel constitutional complaint where the complainant challenged a prior legal determination, but the Court found no basis to proceed separately from established precedents. Relying on its prior reasoning in comparable cases, the Chamber dismissed the complaint without providing a further substantive justification under Section 93d(1) sentence 3 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, rendering the non-acceptance decision unappealable.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
motivation insuffisante des griefs constitutionnels égalité de traitement constitutionnelle bien-fondé matériel droit d'obtenir une décision objet du litige droit parlementaire

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural rule cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a further substantive explanation for the decision not to accept the complaint.

Jurisprudence citée

Généré par l'IA
1 BvR 2654/17
Retroactive statute replacing invalidated collective agreements in construction industry social schemes
1 BvR 1115/18
Legislative power to override judicial precedent via retroactive corrective legislation and separation of powers limits
Généré par l'IA
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 1403/11
Constitutional complaint non-acceptance via parallel decision citing § 93d BVerfGG
1 BvR 2846/19
Constitutional complaint on parallel proceedings; denial of admission under § 93d BVerfGG
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

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

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

Procedural rule cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a further substantive explanation for the decision not to accept the complaint.

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 den Beschlüssen vom 11. August 2020 zu den Aktenzeichen 1 BvR 2654/17 und 1 BvR 1115/18 dargelegt hat und auf die verwiesen wird.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.