Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
2 BvR 1660/21, 2 BvR 1661/21, 2 BvR 1835/21, 2 BvR 1885/21, 2 BvR 1886/21, 2 BvR 2011/21, 2 BvR 2012/21, 2 BvR 2013/21, 2 BvR 2014/21, 2 BvR 2031/21, 2 BvR 2154/21, 2 BvR 2155/21, 2 BvR 2208/21, 2 BvR 28/22, 2 BvR 29/22, 2 BvR 30/22 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2022:rk20220420.2bvr166021 Généré par l'IA

Inadmissibility of substantively empty constitutional complaints and warning of abuse-of-process fees

Numéro de cause 2 BvR 1660/21, 2 BvR 1661/21, 2 BvR 1835/21, 2 BvR 1885/21, 2 BvR 1886/21, 2 BvR 2011/21, 2 BvR 2012/21, 2 BvR 2013/21, 2 BvR 2014/21, 2 BvR 2031/21, 2 BvR 2154/21, 2 BvR 2155/21, 2 BvR 2208/21, 2 BvR 28/22, 2 BvR 29/22, 2 BvR 30/22
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 issued a non-admission order, rejecting multiple consolidated constitutional complaints as obviously inadmissible and warning the petitioner of a potential future penalty fee for abuse of process, thereby upholding the status quo and denying relief. The dispute involved a series of 16 constitutional complaints that were deemed insufficient because they failed to meet the specific pleading requirements, essentially constituting substantively empty filings that obstructed the court’s ability to provide timely fundamental rights protection to others. The decisive legal basis for the rejection was § 93a Abs. 2 and § 93d Abs. 1 BVerfGG, which permit the court to dismiss cases lacking the requisite prerequisites without detailed reasoning, while the warning against future abuse was grounded in § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG, establishing that filing numerous completely insufficiently justified complaints constitutes an abuse warranting a fee.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 92 BVerfGG, § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Inadmissibility of substantively empty constitutional complaints and warning of abuse-of-process fees: The dispute involved a series of 16 constitutional complaints that were deemed insufficient because they failed to meet the specific pleading requirements, essentially constituting substantively empty filings that obstructed the court’s ability to provide timely fundamental rights protection to others. The decisive legal basis for the rejection was § 93a Abs. 2 and § 93d Abs. 1 BVerfGG, which permit the court to dismiss cases lacking the requisite prerequisites without detailed reasoning, while the warning against future abuse was grounded in § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG, establishing that filing numerous completely insufficiently justified complaints constitutes an abuse warranting a fee.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
motivation insuffisante des griefs constitutionnels abus de procédure honoraires d'avocat motifs valables droits fondamentaux réclamation administrative préalable

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG
Primary legal basis cited in the dispositive to justify the non-admission of the constitutional complaints due to lack of admissibility prerequisites.
§ 92 BVerfGG
1 Satz 2 Halbsatz 1, § 92 BVerfGG genügen.
§ 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG
Procedural provision cited in the dispositive to warn the complainant about the imposition of an abuse fee for filing substantively empty complaints.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural provision cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a further detailed reasoning in the decision.
Généré par l'IA
2 BvR 1598/19
Inadmissibility of unsubstantiated constitutional complaint and warning of abuse penalty fees.
1 BvR 294/21
Constitutional complaint rejected as manifestly inadmissible; warning of abuse fee for substantively void petitions under § 34(2) BVerfGG
2 BvR 1854/21, 2 BvR 1855/21, 2 BvR 1856/21, 2 BvR 1857/21, 2 BvR 1858/21, 2 BvR 1859/21, 2 BvR 1966/21, 2 BvR 1974/21, 2 BvR 2091/21
Manifestly unsubstantiated constitutional complaints: procedural inadmissibility and risk of abuse fee under § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG
2 BvR 269/21, 2 BvR 423/21, 2 BvR 424/21, 2 BvR 604/21
Inadmissibility of unsubstantiated constitutional complaints and potential imposition of abuse fees
2 BvR 925/22, 2 BvR 926/22, 2 BvR 1963/22, 2 BvR 1445/22, 2 BvR 1446/22, 2 BvR 1635/22, 2 BvR 1750/22, 2 BvR 1848/22, 2 BvR 1856/22, 2 BvR 1964/22, 2 BvR 1999/22, 2 BvR 2030/22, 2 BvR 2045/22, 2 BvR 2064/22, 2 BvR 2075/22, 2 BvR 2146/22, 2 BvR 2081/22, 2 BvR 2209/22, 2 BvR 119/23
Manifestly unfounded constitutional complaints and threat of abuse fee for substantively empty filings

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Primary legal basis cited in the dispositive to justify the non-admission of the constitutional complaints due to lack of admissibility prerequisites.

§ 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Procedural provision cited in the dispositive to warn the complainant about the imposition of an abuse fee for filing substantively empty complaints.

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Procedural provision cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a further detailed reasoning in the 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

Nichtannahme mehrerer offensichtlich unzulässiger Verfassungsbeschwerden - Androhung einer Missbrauchsgebühr

[GRUENDE]

Die zur gemeinsamen Entscheidung verbundenen Verfassungsbeschwerden sind nicht zur Entscheidung anzunehmen, weil die Annahmevoraussetzungen des § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG nicht vorliegen. Die Verfassungsbeschwerden sind unzulässig, da sie offensichtlich nicht den Anforderungen der § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Halbsatz 1, § 92 BVerfGG genügen.

Der Beschwerdeführer wird für künftige Verfahren darauf hingewiesen, dass ihm bei Vorliegen der Voraussetzungen des § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG eine Missbrauchsgebühr auferlegt werden kann. Ein Missbrauch kann unter anderem vorliegen, wenn das Bundesverfassungsgericht durch für jedermann erkennbare substanzlose Verfassungsbeschwerden an der Erfüllung seiner Aufgaben gehindert wird, wodurch anderen Rechtsuchenden der ihnen zukommende Grundrechtsschutz nur verzögert gewährt werden kann (vgl. BVerfGK, 3, 219 ; 6, 219 ; 10, 94 ; stRspr). Die Erhebung zahlreicher völlig unzureichend begründeter Verfassungsbeschwerden muss von jedem Einsichtigen als aussichtlos angesehen werden.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.