Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 1432/11 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2012:rk20121024.2bvr143211 Generato dall'IA

Hearing rights violation via non-disclosure of opposing statements; lack of decisional relevance in constitutional complaint

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 1432/11
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 German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) issued a non-acceptance decision, rendering the constitutional complaint inadmissible and leaving the underlying dispute unresolved by the Constitutional Court. The case involved a complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard (audi alteram partem), specifically the failure to inform the complainant of opposing counsel's statements prior to an adverse decision. The Court dismissed the complaint as inadmissible under §§ 23(1) sentence 2 and 92 BVerfGG because the complainant failed to sufficiently substantiate the material relevance of the alleged hearing violation. Although the Court acknowledged that Art. 103(1) of the Basic Law is regularly violated when parties are denied the opportunity to respond to opposing arguments, the lack of adequate argumentation regarding the impact on the outcome precluded a merits decision in favor of the complainant.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art 103 Abs 1 GG, § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 92 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, § 23 Abs. 1 S 2, § 92 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 S 3 BVerfGG; Hearing rights violation via non-disclosure of opposing statements; lack of decisional relevance in constitutional complaint: The case involved a complaint alleging a violation of the right to be heard (audi alteram partem), specifically the failure to inform the complainant of opposing counsel's statements prior to an adverse decision. The Court dismissed the complaint as inadmissible under §§ 23(1) sentence 2 and 92 BVerfGG because the complainant failed to sufficiently substantiate the material relevance of the alleged hearing violation. Although the Court acknowledged that Art. 103(1) of the Basic Law is regularly violated when parties are denied the opportunity to respond to opposing arguments, the lack of adequate argumentation regarding the impact on the outcome precluded a merits decision in favor of the complainant.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
diritto di essere sentito censura costituzionale violazione dei diritti di parte patrocinatore di controparte difetto di motivazione censura di violazione costituzionale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Art 103 Abs 1 GG
Nichtannahmebeschluss: Anspruch auf rechtliches Gehör (Art 103 Abs 1 GG) gebietet Kenntnisgabe von Stellungnahmen der Gegenseite im gerichtlichen Verfahren - hier: Unzulässigkeit der Verfassungsbeschwerde bei unzureichender Substantiierung gem §§ 23 Abs 1 S 2, 92 BVerfGG
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG
Cited to establish that the specific admissibility requirements for accepting the complaint for decision were not met.
§ 92 BVerfGG
1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG) unzulässig.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Von einer weiteren Begründung wird nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.
§ 23 Abs. 1 S 2, § 92 BVerfGG
Basis for declaring the constitutional complaint inadmissible due to insufficient substantiation.
§ 93d Abs. 1 S 3 BVerfGG
Provision cited to justify the omission of further reasoning in the decision.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 7, 239
BVerfGE 7, 239 ; 89, 381 ; stRspr) nicht ausreichend dargelegt.
2 BvR 1183/09
Prison detention and denial of personal property: Violation of the right to be heard by withholding opposing party submissions in custody proceedings
2 BvR 43/10
Constitutional complaint inadmissible for failure to file hearing objection regarding non-disclosure of prosecution's submissions
2 BvR 301/11
Constitutional complaint deemed inadmissible due to failure to exhaust legal remedies via hearing objection (Anhöungsrüge) for alleged violation of right to be heard.
2 BvR 2076/08
Withholding opposing party's written statement in appellate proceedings violates the right to be heard despite no impact on substantive outcome
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 43/10, 2 BvR 86/10, 2 BvR 140/10
Constitutional complaint inadmissible for failure to file hearing objection regarding non-disclosure of prosecution's submissions
2 BvR 503/14
Constitutional complaint inadmissible due to failure to file hearing objection against right-to-be-heard violation
2 BvR 301/11
Constitutional complaint deemed inadmissible due to failure to exhaust legal remedies via hearing objection (Anhöungsrüge) for alleged violation of right to be heard.
2 BvR 550/15
Constitutional complaint over breach of right to be heard due to non-transmission of opposing party statements, dismissed for lack of procedural subsidiarity.
1 BvR 202/24
Constitutional complaint over denial of access to a subsequent hearing objection (Anhörungsrüge) as an independent violation of the right to hearing and effective legal protection

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 23 Abs. 1 S 2, § 92 BVerfGG

Basis for declaring the constitutional complaint inadmissible due to insufficient substantiation.

§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Cited to establish that the specific admissibility requirements for accepting the complaint for decision were not met.

§ 93d Abs. 1 S 3 BVerfGG

Provision cited to justify the omission of further reasoning in 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: Anspruch auf rechtliches Gehör (Art 103 Abs 1 GG) gebietet Kenntnisgabe von Stellungnahmen der Gegenseite im gerichtlichen Verfahren - hier: Unzulässigkeit der Verfassungsbeschwerde bei unzureichender Substantiierung gem §§ 23 Abs 1 S 2, 92 BVerfGG

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen. Die Annahmevoraussetzungen des § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG liegen

nicht vor; auch im Übrigen ist die Annahme nicht angezeigt. Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist mangels hinreichend substantiierter

Begründung (§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG) unzulässig.

Der Vortrag des Beschwerdeführers ist nicht aus sich heraus verständlich und entspricht daher nicht den Anforderungen an die

Begründung einer Verfassungsbeschwerde. Insbesondere ist eine Entscheidungserheblichkeit des geltend gemachten Gehörsverstoßes

(vgl. BVerfGE 7, 239 ; 89, 381 ; stRspr) nicht ausreichend dargelegt.

Ungeachtet des Umstandes, dass Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG regelmäßig verletzt ist, wenn das Gericht einem Verfahrensbeteiligten vor

einer für ihn ungünstigen Entscheidung keine Gelegenheit gibt, sich zu der im Verfahren abgegebenen Stellungnahme der Gegenseite

zu äußern (vgl. BVerfG, Beschlüsse der 3. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 15. November 2010 - 2 BvR 1183/09 -, juris; vom 2.

März 2011 - 2 BvR 43/10 u.a. -, juris; vom 21. März 2011 - 2 BvR 301/11 -, juris; vom 6. Juni 2011 - 2 BvR 2076/08 -, juris),

kommt daher eine stattgebende Entscheidung nicht in Betracht.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.