Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
2 BvR 577/25 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2025:rk20250707.2bvr057725 Généré par l'IA

Generic recusal motion against unnamed judges rejected for lack of specific justification

Numéro de cause 2 BvR 577/25
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 constitutional complaint and rejected the motion for recusal of unspecified judges, with the decision being unappealable. The applicant filed a motion for recusal directed generically against "the senates of the Federal Constitutional Court" without providing a comprehensible justification, while also lodging a constitutional complaint. The Court determined the recusal motion was manifestly inadmissible because it failed to name specific judges and lacked a substantial basis, resulting in no judge being excluded from the proceedings and no need for official statements from them. The legal basis for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint relied on § 93d(1) sentence 3 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), which permits the Court to omit further reasoning when the merits are not taken up.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Generic recusal motion against unnamed judges rejected for lack of specific justification: The applicant filed a motion for recusal directed generically against "the senates of the Federal Constitutional Court" without providing a comprehensible justification, while also lodging a constitutional complaint. The Court determined the recusal motion was manifestly inadmissible because it failed to name specific judges and lacked a substantial basis, resulting in no judge being excluded from the proceedings and no need for official statements from them. The legal basis for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint relied on § 93d(1) sentence 3 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), which permits the Court to omit further reasoning when the merits are not taken up.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
demande de récusation motivation insuffisante des griefs constitutionnels action en séparation de corps motivation prévention du juge jugement par défaut

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural rule cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a further reasoned decision regarding the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.

Jurisprudence citée

Généré par l'IA
BVerfGE 142, 1
Généré par l'IA
2 BvR 43/20
Recusal motion against non-deciding chamber judges dismissed as manifestly inadmissible
1 BvR 956/18
Manifestly inadmissible recusal motion against unnamed constitutional court judges lacking specific identification and concrete factual basis
1 BvR 1126/17
Rejection of manifestly inadmissible recusal motions and non-admission of constitutional complaint without further reasoning under § 93d BVerfGG
2 BvR 1622/22
Unsubstantiated recusal motion and insufficiently reasoned constitutional complaint
1 BvR 665/25
Blanket recusal of all court judges without specific bias circumstances; evidentiary insufficiency of general allegations

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Procedural rule cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a further reasoned decision regarding the non-acceptance of the constitutional 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 einer Verfassungsbeschwerde ohne Begründung - Verwerfung eines offensichtlich unzulässigen Ablehnungsgesuchs gegen "die Senate" des BVerfG

[TENOR]

Das Ablehnungsgesuch gegen namentlich nicht genannte Richter des Bundesverfassungsgerichts wird als unzulässig verworfen.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Das Ablehnungsgesuch ist offensichtlich unzulässig, weil es pauschal "gegen die Senate des Bundesverfassungsgerichts" gerichtet und nicht mit einer nachvollziehbaren Begründung versehen ist. In einem solchen Fall ist kein Richter von der Entscheidung über das Ablehnungsgesuch ausgeschlossen; dienstlicher Stellungnahmen bedarf es nicht (vgl. BVerfGE 142, 1 m.w.N.).

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.