Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
2 BvR 751/11 Generato dall'IA

Failure to serve constitutional complaint attachments within the statutory one-month filing deadline renders the remedy inadmissible.

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 751/11
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Inammissibile (Inadmissible)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Constitutional Court declined to accept the constitutional complaint for adjudication, finding it inadmissible, thereby leaving the underlying matter unchanged. The dispute concerned the timeliness of a constitutional complaint where the initial submission was made via fax within the statutory one-month deadline, but the necessary supporting attachments were sent by post and arrived after the deadline had expired. The court held that a constitutional complaint must be filed in a manner that enables an assessment of its admissibility and merits within the strict time limit prescribed by § 93(1) Sentence 1 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG); because the essential documents were not received in time to allow for such an assessment, the filing requirements were not met, and the complaint was deemed inadmissible without further substantive reasoning.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 93 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Failure to serve constitutional complaint attachments within the statutory one-month filing deadline renders the remedy inadmissible: The dispute concerned the timeliness of a constitutional complaint where the initial submission was made via fax within the statutory one-month deadline, but the necessary supporting attachments were sent by post and arrived after the deadline had expired. The court held that a constitutional complaint must be filed in a manner that enables an assessment of its admissibility and merits within the strict time limit prescribed by § 93(1) Sentence 1 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG); because the essential documents were not received in time to allow for such an assessment, the filing requirements were not met, and the complaint was deemed inadmissible without further substantive reasoning.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
requisito costituzionale tempestività dell'inoltro oggetto della lite termine legale eccezione di incostituzionalità durata ragionevole del procedimento

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 21, 359
BVerfGE 21, 359 ) in der erforderlichen, eine Beurteilung ihrer Zulässigkeit
BVerfGE 112, 304
und Begründetheit ermöglichenden Weise begründet werden (vgl. BVerfGE 112, 304 ). Dies ist hier nicht geschehen. Innerhalb
Generato dall'IA

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Cited in the dispositive order to formally declare that the constitutional complaint will not be accepted for decision due to inadmissibility.

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Cited in the dispositive order to justify the omission of a further legal justification for 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

Nichtannahmebeschluss: Verfristung einer Verfassungsbeschwerde (§ 93 Abs 1 S 1 BVerfGG) bei Eingang der für eine Beurteilung notwendigen Anlagen erst nach Ablauf der Monatsfrist

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen (§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG), weil sie unzulässig ist. Eine Verfassungsbeschwerde

muss innerhalb der Verfassungsbeschwerdefrist (vgl. BVerfGE 21, 359 ) in der erforderlichen, eine Beurteilung ihrer Zulässigkeit

und Begründetheit ermöglichenden Weise begründet werden (vgl. BVerfGE 112, 304 ). Dies ist hier nicht geschehen. Innerhalb

der Frist des § 93 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG ging nur die Verfassungsbeschwerdeschrift per Telefax beim Bundesverfassungsgericht

ein. Die Anlagen, ohne die eine ausreichende Beurteilung nicht möglich ist, folgten als Postsendung erst am 9. April 2011

und sind damit nach Ablauf der Verfassungsbeschwerdefrist eingegangen.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.