Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
2 BvQ 80/22 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2022:qk20221021.2bvq008022 Généré par l'IA

Ukraine arms deliveries: denial of interim relief due to insufficient substantiation of prospects of success

Numéro de cause 2 BvQ 80/22
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Allemagne (DE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)
Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The Federal Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's application for a temporary injunction, meaning the status quo regarding weapons deliveries to Ukraine remains in force. The case involved a challenge against government measures related to the supply of arms to the Ukraine, where the applicant sought to halt these deliveries pending a full constitutional review. The Court denied relief solely on procedural grounds, determining that the applicant failed to provide sufficiently substantiated arguments demonstrating that a constitutional complaint would be neither obviously inadmissible nor obviously unfounded, nor that the filing constituted an abuse of process, thereby meeting the initial threshold required under § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG for granting interim relief.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG; Ukraine arms deliveries: denial of interim relief due to insufficient substantiation of prospects of success: The case involved a challenge against government measures related to the supply of arms to the Ukraine, where the applicant sought to halt these deliveries pending a full constitutional review. The Court denied relief solely on procedural grounds, determining that the applicant failed to provide sufficiently substantiated arguments demonstrating that a constitutional complaint would be neither obviously inadmissible nor obviously unfounded, nor that the filing constituted an abuse of process, thereby meeting the initial threshold required under § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG for granting interim relief.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
référé statut de protection pour Ukrainiens contrôle de la procédure moyens invocables aide d'urgence constitutionnelle recours constitutionnel à l'étranger

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG
Procedural basis for the application for an interim order, which was dismissed due to lack of sufficient substantiation.
Généré par l'IA
1 BvQ 66/17
Denial of interim relief due to manifest lack of substantiation of constitutional complaint
2 BvQ 101/18
Constitutional interim relief denied for failure to substantiate the principle of subsidiarity of constitutional complaints
2 BvQ 39/16
Insufficient substantiation of isolated interim injunction application and failure to demonstrate admissibility of main constitutional complaint
2 BvQ 89/22
Constitutional application for temporary injunction rejected for lack of substantiated prospects of success in the main proceedings
2 BvQ 26/13
Interim relief denied for procedural delay due to failure to file a subsidiary delay objection under § 198(3) GVG

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG

Procedural basis for the application for an interim order, which was dismissed due to lack of sufficient substantiation.

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 isolierter Eilantrag bzgl Waffenlieferungen an die Ukraine: mangelnde Darlegungen zu Erfolgsaussichten in der Hauptsache

[TENOR]

Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung wird abgelehnt.

[GRUENDE]

Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung (§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG) ist abzulehnen. Es fehlt an einem hinreichend substantiierten Vortrag dazu, dass eine Verfassungsbeschwerde in der Hauptsache weder von vornherein unzulässig noch offensichtlich unbegründet wäre (vgl. BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 9. Februar 2022 - 2 BvQ 10/22 -, Rn. 2) und ihre Erhebung keinen Missbrauch darstellte.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.