Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
2 BvQ 96/21 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2021:qk20211119.2bvq009621 Généré par l'IA

Interim suspension of Atomic Energy Act amendment amendments denied for lack of demonstration of violation of individual rights

Numéro de cause 2 BvQ 96/21
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 dismissed the applicant's application for interim relief. The dispute concerned an attempted suspension of specific provisions of the Eighteenth Amendment to the Atomic Energy Act (18. AtGÄndG) pending the outcome of related proceedings. The court ruled that the application was inadmissible because the applicant failed to provide a sufficiently substantiated demonstration that the main constitutional complaint would not be obviously unfounded, specifically failing to prove a violation of their own individual rights as required by § 90 Abs. 1 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG). Consequently, no interim measures were granted, and the challenged statutory provisions remain in force.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 90 Abs 1 BVerfGG, § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG; Interim suspension of Atomic Energy Act amendment amendments denied for lack of demonstration of violation of individual rights: The dispute concerned an attempted suspension of specific provisions of the Eighteenth Amendment to the Atomic Energy Act (18. AtGÄndG) pending the outcome of related proceedings. The court ruled that the application was inadmissible because the applicant failed to provide a sufficiently substantiated demonstration that the main constitutional complaint would not be obviously unfounded, specifically failing to prove a violation of their own individual rights as required by § 90 Abs. 1 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG). Consequently, no interim measures were granted, and the challenged statutory provisions remain in force.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
référé exigence constitutionnelle droit de demeurer procédure pendante exception d'inconstitutionnalité prétention légale

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 90 Abs 1 BVerfGG
Cited in the grounds for the dismissal to indicate that the applicant failed to demonstrate a violation of their own individual rights.
§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG
Cited in the grounds for the dismissal to establish that the application lacks a substantiated showing that the underlying constitutional complaint is admissible.
Généré par l'IA
1 BvQ 45/17
Interim constitutional relief denied due to failure to substantiate violation of specific fundamental rights against a non-act state measure
1 BvR 1456/12
Enforcement application against nuclear phase-out ruling denied for lack of legal interest following successful challenge to 16th Atomic Energy Act amendment's entry into force.
1 BvR 2038/20
Interim relief for prohibited demonstration denied due to failure to substantiate exhaustion of specialized court relief
1 BvQ 66/17
Denial of interim relief due to manifest lack of substantiation of constitutional complaint
1 BvQ 92/20
Constitutional emergency application against demonstration ban fails for lack of proof of administrative order and prior exhaustion of remedies

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG

Cited in the grounds for the dismissal to establish that the application lacks a substantiated showing that the underlying constitutional complaint is admissible.

§ 90 Abs. 1 BVerfGG

Cited in the grounds for the dismissal to indicate that the applicant failed to demonstrate a violation of their own individual rights.

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

Erfolgloser Eilantrag auf Aussetzung der §§ 7e Abs 2 Nr 2, 7g AtG bis zur Entscheidung über anhängige Verfahren - mangelnde Darlegung einer Verletzung in eigenen Rechten (§ 90 Abs 1 BVerfGG)

[TENOR]

Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung wird abgelehnt.

[GRUENDE]

Der Antrag ist unzulässig. Es fehlt an einem hinreichend substantiierten Vortrag zu den Voraussetzungen von § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG, weil der Antragsteller nicht ausreichend dargelegt hat, dass der - gegebenenfalls noch zu stellende - Antrag in der Hauptsache gegen die beanstandeten Vorschriften des Achtzehnten Gesetzes zur Änderung des Atomgesetzes (18. AtGÄndG) weder unzulässig noch offensichtlich unbegründet ist (vgl. BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 24. April 2018 - 2 BvQ 35/18 -; Beschluss der 3. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 6. Juli 2021 - 2 BvQ 62/21 -, Rn. 1). Insbesondere hat der Antragsteller eine Verletzung in eigenen Rechten im Sinne des § 90 Abs. 1 BVerfGG nicht nachvollziehbar dargetan.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.