Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 1586/12 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2012:rk20120926.2bvr158612 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional complaint dismissed for failing to prove timely notification of lower court decision; abuse fee imposed on attorney for false dates

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 1586/12
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 declined to hear the constitutional complaint, declaring it inadmissible for failing to sufficiently demonstrate compliance with the one-month filing deadline under § 93 Abs. 1 S. 1 BVerfGG, and ordered the complainant’s attorney to pay an abuse fee of €1,000. The dispute involved a challenge to a decision of the Munich Higher Regional Court, where the petitioner alleged the decision was only notified on June 14, 2012. The Court found this claim factually inconsistent with the power of attorney signed by the petitioner on June 4, 2012—which explicitly listed the court decision—and with the official transmission date of May 11, 2012. The decisive legal basis was the requirement for adequate substantiation of the timely filing deadline, which was not met due to contradictory evidence of the notification date, justifying the dismissal and the imposition of a penalty for the abuse of the legal process.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93 Abs. 1 S. 1 BVerfGG; Constitutional complaint dismissed for failing to prove timely notification of lower court decision; abuse fee imposed on attorney for false dates: 1 S. 1 BVerfGG, and ordered the complainant’s attorney to pay an abuse fee of €1,000. The dispute involved a challenge to a decision of the Munich Higher Regional Court, where the petitioner alleged the decision was only notified on June 14, 2012. The Court found this claim factually inconsistent with the power of attorney signed by the petitioner on June 4, 2012—which explicitly listed the court decision—and with the official transmission date of May 11, 2012. The decisive legal basis was the requirement for adequate substantiation of the timely filing deadline, which was not met due to contradictory evidence of the notification date, justifying the dismissal and the imposition of a penalty for the abuse of the legal process.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
notificazione della decisione motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali data di inoltro abuso del processo rispetto del termine mancanza di prova

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93 Abs. 1 S. 1 BVerfGG
Main ground for the verdict, as the complaint was declared inadmissible for failing to sufficiently demonstrate compliance with the filing deadline.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 1142/12
Misuse fee for contradictory service dates and failure to cure procedural defects in constitutional complaint regarding acoustic detention surveillance
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 223/20
Constitutional complaint dismissed as time-barred and insufficiently reasoned regarding enforcement-related court rulings
2 BvR 171/20
Constitutional complaint inadmissible due to failure to prove timeliness of filing where judgment served to counsel and principal at different times
2 BvR 250/16
Constitutional complaint rejected for failure to substantiate constitutional rights and imposition of abuse fee on counsel after prior notice of obvious inadmissibility
1 BvR 704/23
Insufficient substantiation of constitutional complaint and abusive filing by attorney triggering warning of abuse fee
1 BvR 2324/16
Constitutional complaint dismissed for tardiness and attorney fined for abusive filing containing insulting remarks

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 93 Abs. 1 S. 1 BVerfGG

Main ground for the verdict, as the complaint was declared inadmissible for failing to sufficiently demonstrate compliance with the filing deadline.

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 mit Tenorbegründung: Missbräuchlichkeit der Erhebung einer Verfassungsbeschwerde bei Falschangaben über entscheidungserhebliche Umstände (hier: Datum der Bekanntgabe der angegriffenen fachgerichtlichen Entscheidung) - Unzulässigkeit mangels hinreichender Darlegung der Fristwahrung (§ 93 Abs 1 S 1 BVerfGG) - Auferlegung einer Missbrauchsgebühr iHv 1000 Euro zu Lasten der Bevollmächtigten des Beschwerdeführers

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen. Sie ist mangels hinreichender Darlegung der Wahrung der

Frist des § 93 Abs. 1 S. 1 BVerfGG unzulässig. Das in der Verfassungsbeschwerdeschrift angegebene Datum der Bekanntgabe des

angefochtenen Beschlusses des Oberlandesgerichts München vom 9. Mai 2012 (erst) am 14. Juni 2012 kann schon deshalb nicht

richtig sein, weil die vom Beschwerdeführer unterzeichnete Vollmacht bereits vom 4. Juni 2012 datiert und in dieser der betreffende

Beschluss mit Datum und Aktenzeichen angegeben ist; zudem widerspricht der behauptete Zugang am 14. Juni 2012 ersichtlich

dem Absendevermerk der Geschäftsstelle an die Verteidiger (Rechtsanwalt E… und Rechtsanwalt K…) vom 11. Mai 2012 (anders auch

die zu den Akten gelangten "Abschriften" der Verfassungsbeschwerdeschrift, die eine Bekanntgabe am 16. Mai 2012 ausweisen).

Der Verfahrensbevollmächtigte hat sich trotz eines entsprechenden Hinweises zu diesen Widersprüchlichkeiten nicht ausreichend

verhalten.

Dem Prozessbevollmächtigten des Beschwerdeführers wird eine Missbrauchsgebühr in Höhe von 1.000 € (in Worten: eintausend Euro)

auferlegt (vgl. Bundesverfassungsgericht, Beschluss der 3. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 11. Juli 2012 - 2 BvR 1142/12 -,

juris).

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.