Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
2 BvE 1/25 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2025:es20250120.2bve000125 Généré par l'IA

Inadmissibility of Organklage for non-compliance with deadline and failure to engage with prior jurisprudence on Bundestag election signature thresholds

Numéro de cause 2 BvE 1/25
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 institutional challenge (Organklage) filed by a state-level political party, ruling that the application was inadmissible and the request for interim relief was thereby moot; the Court further denied the applicant's claim for reimbursement of necessary legal expenses. The dispute concerned the threshold requirements for collection signatures in favor of electoral lists for political parties not yet represented in the German Bundestag. The decisive legal basis for the dismissal was the failure to meet the strict deadline prescribed by Section 64(3) of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), coupled with a procedural deficiency in which the applicant failed to adequately engage with relevant prior decisions of the Second Senate from December 2024 regarding pre-election legal remedies and signature thresholds.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 64 Absatz 3 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz; Inadmissibility of Organklage for non-compliance with deadline and failure to engage with prior jurisprudence on Bundestag election signature thresholds: The dispute concerned the threshold requirements for collection signatures in favor of electoral lists for political parties not yet represented in the German Bundestag. The decisive legal basis for the dismissal was the failure to meet the strict deadline prescribed by Section 64(3) of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), coupled with a procedural deficiency in which the applicant failed to adequately engage with relevant prior decisions of the Second Senate from December 2024 regarding pre-election legal remedies and signature thresholds.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
observation du délai exigence de signature partis politiques frais électoraux contentieux électoral référé

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 64 Absatz 3 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz
Cited as the procedural basis for deeming the institutional challenge inadmissible due to the non-compliance with the application deadline.
Généré par l'IA
2 BvC 19/21
Federal Constitutional Court non-recognition complaint for Bundestag party status inadmissible due to expiration of four-day filing deadline
2 BvC 9/21
Failure of written notice of electoral participation due to non-compliant email submission and missed statutory deadline
2 BvC 16/21
Denial of Party Status in Federal Elections: Inadmissibility of Complaint Due to Expiry of Four-Day Filing Deadline and Prohibition of Analogous Reinstatement in Accelerated Proceedings
2 BvC 2/21
Inadmissibility of non-recognition complaint due to failure to meet pleading requirements and inability to cure pre-deadline defects in party recognition.
2 BvE 5/21, 2 BvE 6/21
Mootness of constitutional challenge to Bundestag election support signature thresholds after legislative reduction

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
§ 64 Absatz 3 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz

Cited as the procedural basis for deeming the institutional challenge inadmissible due to the non-compliance with the application deadline.

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

Erfolglose Organklage der ÖDP Sachsen bzgl der Quoren für Unterstützungsunterschriften zugunsten von Wahlvorschlägen bislang im Deutschen Bundestag nicht vertretener Parteien - A-limine-Abweisung - Antragsfrist nicht gewahrt, unzureichende Auseinandersetzung mit einschlägigen Senatsentscheidungen - Tenorbegründung

[TENOR]

1. Der Antrag zu 1. wird verworfen, weil er unzulässig ist. Er wahrt schon die Antragsfrist des § 64 Absatz 3 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz nicht. Auf die Gründe des Beschlusses des Senats vom 10. Dezember 2024 im Verfahren 2 BvQ 73/24 (Bundestagswahl 2025 - Vorgelagerter Rechtsschutz) wird Bezug genommen. Auch setzt sich die Antragstellerin mit dem genannten Beschluss sowie dem Beschluss des Senats vom 10. Dezember 2024 im Verfahren 2 BvE 15/23 (Unterschriftenquoren Bundestagswahl II), dort insbesondere Randnummer 76, nicht auseinander.

2. Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung wird damit gegenstandslos.

3. Der Antrag der Antragstellerin auf Erstattung ihrer notwendigen Auslagen wird abgelehnt.