Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
1 BvR 1395/11 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2012:rk20120529.1bvr139511 Generato dall'IA

Discretion to dispense with reasoning in constitutional complaint non-admission under § 93d BVerfGG

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 1395/11
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Inammissibile (Inadmissible)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit the constitutional complaint for a decision, rendering the order unappealable without further written reasoning pursuant to § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, thereby allowing the underlying legal position to stand. The case concerned a request for review based on a parallel decision issued by the same chamber on the same day, implying a consistent procedural or substantive outcome across multiple complaints challenging the same underlying matter. The decisive legal basis was the discretion under § 93d of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), which permits the court to dispense with an elaborate justification when the legal issues are identical to those already addressed in a concurrent ruling.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Discretion to dispense with reasoning in constitutional complaint non-admission under § 93d BVerfGG: 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, thereby allowing the underlying legal position to stand. The case concerned a request for review based on a parallel decision issued by the same chamber on the same day, implying a consistent procedural or substantive outcome across multiple complaints challenging the same underlying matter. The decisive legal basis was the discretion under § 93d of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), which permits the court to dispense with an elaborate justification when the legal issues are identical to those already addressed in a concurrent ruling.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
decisioni incidentali motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali motivazione nel merito potere d'apprezzamento del giudice facoltà di astenersi dal testimoniare decisione motivata

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
Generato dall'IA

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Procedural provision cited to justify the omission of a further legal justification in the non-admission order.

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: Parallelentscheidung

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen (vgl. Beschluss der 1. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 29. Mai

2012 - 1 BvR 640/11 -).

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.