Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
1 BvR 2647/20 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2020:rk20201130.1bvr264720 Généré par l'IA

Constitutional complaint against closure powers under IfSG § 28a dismissed for insufficient reasoning

Numéro de cause 1 BvR 2647/20
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 German Federal Constitutional Court (First Senate, Second Chamber) dismissed the constitutional complaint without granting relief, rendering the underlying constitutional challenge inadmissible and the concurrent application for interim relief moot. The dispute concerned a challenge to specific provisions of the Infection Protection Act (IfSG), which authorize the restriction or closure of gastronomic and commercial establishments to combat infectious diseases. The complaint was rejected on procedural grounds for failing to meet the mandatory requirements for substantive argumentation and justification, rather than on the merits of the substantive constitutional issues. The decisive legal basis for the outcome was the deficiency in the complaint's justification relative to the requirements of §§ 23 and 92 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG).

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, § 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG; Constitutional complaint against closure powers under IfSG § 28a dismissed for insufficient reasoning: The dispute concerned a challenge to specific provisions of the Infection Protection Act (IfSG), which authorize the restriction or closure of gastronomic and commercial establishments to combat infectious diseases. The complaint was rejected on procedural grounds for failing to meet the mandatory requirements for substantive argumentation and justification, rather than on the merits of the substantive constitutional issues. The decisive legal basis for the outcome was the deficiency in the complaint's justification relative to the requirements of §§ 23 and 92 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG).

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
grief constitutionnel questions procédurales protection juridique grief de violation constitutionnelle bien-fondé matériel différend commercial

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Von einer weiteren Begründung wird nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.
§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG
Procedural rule cited in the dispositive to declare the application for interim relief moot upon the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.
Généré par l'IA
1 BvR 927/21
Insufficient Substantiation of Constitutional Complaint Challenging Epidemic Infection Control Measures
1 BvR 625/22
Direct constitutional challenge to § 20a IfSG rejected for insufficient substantiation of fundamental rights infringement
1 BvR 242/21
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint for failure to exhaust legal remedies via hearing objection in school closure disputes
1 BvR 1170/21
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint against epidemic ordinance authorizations due to lack of standing and unmet substantiation requirements
1 BvR 2143/20
Constitutional complaint against interim injunction denial in infection control ordinances barred by subsidiarity due to unexplored administrative norm control route

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG

Procedural rule cited in the dispositive to declare the application for interim relief moot upon the non-acceptance of the constitutional 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: Rechtssatzverfassungsbeschwerde gegen § 28a Abs 1 Nr 13, Nr 14 IfSG (Möglichkeit der Beschränkung oder Schließung von gastronomischen Betrieben, bzw Gewerben sowie Handelsbetrieben) mangels hinreichender Begründung unzulässig

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

Mit der Nichtannahme der Verfassungsbeschwerde wird der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung gegenstandslos (§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG).

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist unzulässig, weil sie den Begründungsanforderungen der §§ 23, 92 BVerfGG nicht genügt.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.