Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvE 11/20 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2024:es20240927.2bve001120 Generato dall'IA

Inadequacy of party status arguments in challenging Infection Protection Act provisions in organ dispute proceedings

Numero d'incarto 2 BvE 11/20
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Inammissibile (Inadmissible)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the application of a political party as evidently inadmissible, meaning the applicant did not prevail and the challenged legal provisions remain in force. The dispute concerned an organ dispute (Organstreit) in which the applicant alleged that specific provisions of the German Infection Protection Act (IfSG), as amended in November 2020, violated its specific constitutional status as a political party. The Court ruled that the application failed because the applicant did not provide the substantiated explanation required by Section 23(1) Sentence 2 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG) to demonstrate how the legislation infringed upon its special constitutional rights, a requirement also referenced in the context of the General Rules of Procedure (GOBVerfG) regarding the lack of necessity to serve the respondent.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art. 24 Satz 2 BVerfGG; Inadequacy of party status arguments in challenging Infection Protection Act provisions in organ dispute proceedings: The dispute concerned an organ dispute (Organstreit) in which the applicant alleged that specific provisions of the German Infection Protection Act (IfSG), as amended in November 2020, violated its specific constitutional status as a political party. The Court ruled that the application failed because the applicant did not provide the substantiated explanation required by Section 23(1) Sentence 2 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG) to demonstrate how the legislation infringed upon its special constitutional rights, a requirement also referenced in the context of the General Rules of Procedure (GOBVerfG) regarding the lack of necessity to serve the respondent.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
partiti politici diritto di manifestare requisito costituzionale statuto giuridico regolamento interno tutela legale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Art. 24 Satz 2 BVerfGG
Legal basis cited in the final order for dispensing with a further detailed reasoning of the decision.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 4, 27
BVerfGE 4, 27 ; 60, 53 ; 166, 93 – Finanzierung Desiderius-Erasmus-Stiftung; stRspr) verletzt oder unmittelbar gefährdet.
Generato dall'IA
2 BvE 6/15
Organ dispute over military deployment and party status: Inadmissibility of declaratory relief on party identity and norm invalidity in BVerfG proceedings
2 BvE 8/12
Organ dispute: Inadmissibility of challenge to candidate dual-party membership ban due to missed statutory filing deadline based on law's public promulgation
2 BvE 1/13
Insufficiency of party-status injury allegation in inter-institutional dispute concerning electoral, party, and constitutional organizational measures
2 BvE 9/20
Limits of interim relief in organ disputes: inadmissibility of orders compelling general procedural safeguards for parliamentary elections
2 BvE 5/18
Organ dispute over accelerated party funding legislation: exclusion of abstract norm control and standing based solely on the democracy principle.

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
Art. 24 Satz 2 BVerfGG

Legal basis cited in the final order for dispensing with a further detailed reasoning of the decision.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Verwerfung eines offensichtlich unzulässigen Antrags der Partei "Die Rechte" im Organstreitverfahren - Rechtsverletzung durch § 28a IfSG idF vom 18.11.2020 nicht substantiiert dargelegt

[TENOR]

Der Antrag wird verworfen.

[GRUENDE]

Der Antrag im Organstreit (Art. 93 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 GG i.V.m. § 13 Nr. 5, §§ 63 ff. BVerfGG) ist aus den im Schreiben des Berichterstatters vom 12. Juli 2024 genannten Gründen offensichtlich unzulässig. Insbesondere fehlt es danach an der gemäß § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BVerfGG erforderlichen substantiierten Darlegung, inwiefern die angegriffene Vorschrift des § 28a Abs. 1 Nr. 10, Abs. 3 Sätze 4 und 5 IfSG in der Fassung vom 18. November 2020 (BGBl I S. 2397) die Antragstellerin in ihrem besonderen verfassungsrechtlichen Status als politische Partei (vgl. BVerfGE 4, 27 ; 60, 53 ; 166, 93 – Finanzierung Desiderius-Erasmus-Stiftung; stRspr) verletzt oder unmittelbar gefährdet.

Einer Zustellung der Antragsschrift an die Antragsgegnerin bedurfte es angesichts der offensichtlichen Unzulässigkeit gemäß § 22 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GOBVerfG nicht.

Von einer weiteren Begründung wird gemäß § 24 Satz 2 BVerfGG abgesehen.