Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
2 BvR 860/25 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2025:rk20250701.2bvr086025 Généré par l'IA

Constitutional complaint against conviction for aiding suicide: failure to prove misapprehension of standards for free and responsible will

Numéro de cause 2 BvR 860/25
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 (2nd Senate, 3rd Chamber) refused to accept the constitutional complaint for decision, declaring it inadmissible for failure to meet the requirements of § 23 Abs. 1 S. 2 and § 92 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), thereby leaving the lower courts' criminal convictions intact and rendering the request for interim relief moot. The dispute involved a physician challenging his conviction for manslaughter in the capacity of an indirect perpetrator for assisting the suicide of a patient deemed not to have acted with free and responsible will, alleging that the specialized courts violated constitutional standards regarding a free decision to commit suicide. The Court held that the complainant failed to demonstrate a plausible violation of fundamental rights, specifically failing to substantiate that the challenged decisions were based on a misapprehension of the established constitutional standards for assisting suicide, as previously defined in BVerfGE 153, 182.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 23 Absatz 1 Satz 2, § 92 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz, § 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG; Constitutional complaint against conviction for aiding suicide: failure to prove misapprehension of standards for free and responsible will: 1 S. 2 and § 92 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), thereby leaving the lower courts' criminal convictions intact and rendering the request for interim relief moot. The dispute involved a physician challenging his conviction for manslaughter in the capacity of an indirect perpetrator for assisting the suicide of a patient deemed not to have acted with free and responsible will, alleging that the specialized courts violated constitutional standards regarding a free decision to commit suicide. The Court held that the complainant failed to demonstrate a plausible violation of fundamental rights, specifically failing to substantiate that the challenged decisions were based on a misapprehension of the established constitutional standards for assisting suicide, as previously defined in BVerfGE 153, 182.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
meurtre passionnel exigence constitutionnelle dénonciation pénale droits fondamentaux grief de violation constitutionnelle erreur judiciaire

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 23 Absatz 1 Satz 2, § 92 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz
Provisions cited in the dispositive to establish the inadmissibility of the constitutional complaint due to failure to meet specific pleading requirements.
§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG
Procedural rule cited in the dispositive to determine that the application for interim relief became moot upon the refusal to accept the main complaint.

Jurisprudence citée

Généré par l'IA
BVerfGE 153, 182
BVerfGE 153, 182 - Suizidhilfe m.w.N.).
Généré par l'IA
2 BvR 2506/16
Mootness of constitutional complaint challenging criminalization of commercial suicide facilitation following parallel precedent rendering the statute void.
2 BvR 2492/16
Constitutional complaint against criminalization of commercial suicide facilitation rejected for insufficient substantiation
2 BvR 1494/16
Constitutional challenge to the criminalization of commercial assistance in suicide; loss of interest due to prior invalidation of the statute
2 BvR 1807/16
Moot constitutional challenge to criminal prohibition on commercial suicide facilitation due to prior invalidation of statute
2 BvR 2667/16
Constitutional complaint against commercial suicide facilitation statute declared moot after prior parallel judgment invalidated the prohibition

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
§ 23 Absatz 1 Satz 2, § 92 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz

Provisions cited in the dispositive to establish the inadmissibility of the constitutional complaint due to failure to meet specific pleading requirements.

§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG

Procedural rule cited in the dispositive to determine that the application for interim relief became moot upon the refusal to accept the main 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

Nichtannahme ohne Begründung: Erfolglose Verfassungsbeschwerde eines Arztes gegen seine Verurteilung wegen Totschlags in mittelbarer Täterschaft nach Suizidbeihilfe bei einem nicht freiverantwortlich handelnden Suizidenten - mangelnde Darlegung einer Verkennung der verfassungsrechtlichen Anforderungen durch die fachgerichtlichen Entscheidungen

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen. Sie ist unzulässig, weil sie den Darlegungsanforderungen der § 23 Absatz 1 Satz 2, § 92 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz nicht genügt. Die Beschwerdebegründung zeigt die Möglichkeit einer Verletzung von Grundrechten oder grundrechtsgleichen Rechten des Beschwerdeführers nicht schlüssig auf. Insbesondere legt der Beschwerdeführer nicht schlüssig dar, dass die angegriffenen Entscheidungen auf einer Verkennung der verfassungsgerichtlichen Maßstäbe beruhen, die an eine freie Suizidentscheidung anzulegen sind (vgl. BVerfGE 153, 182 - Suizidhilfe m.w.N.).

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

[GRUENDE]

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.