Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 347/11 Generato dall'IA

Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint for lack of substantiated fundamental rights argumentation and imposition of abuse fee on counsel

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 347/11
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 Federal Constitutional Court (Second Senate, First Chamber) dismissed the constitutional complaint as inadmissible without deciding on the merits, leaving the lower court judgment in force, and imposed a mandatory €1,000 abuse fee on the applicants' legal representative. The dispute concerned a constitutional challenge against a district court judgment, which the Court found procedurally deficient for lacking a substantiated, specific argumentation regarding the infringement of constitutional rights. The decision relied on §§ 23(1) sentence 2, 92, and 34(2) of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, citing the failure to meet statutory pleading standards due to reliance on generalizations, unfounded conspiracy theories, and unsubstantiated accusations of judicial manipulation rather than concrete legal analysis.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 92 BVerfGG, § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BVerfGG; Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint for lack of substantiated fundamental rights argumentation and imposition of abuse fee on counsel: The dispute concerned a constitutional challenge against a district court judgment, which the Court found procedurally deficient for lacking a substantiated, specific argumentation regarding the infringement of constitutional rights. The decision relied on §§ 23(1) sentence 2, 92, and 34(2) of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, citing the failure to meet statutory pleading standards due to reliance on generalizations, unfounded conspiracy theories, and unsubstantiated accusations of judicial manipulation rather than concrete legal analysis.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
censura costituzionale diritto a un difensore diritti costituzionali specifici requisito legale censura di violazione costituzionale teoria legale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 92 BVerfGG
Cited in the dispositive to establish the deficiency in the reasoning of the constitutional complaint regarding the alleged violation of fundamental rights.
§ 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG
Cited in the dispositive to impose a fine of 1,000 Euro on the representative for filing an obviously inadmissible complaint.
§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BVerfGG
Cited in the dispositive as the statutory requirement for the substantiation of the constitutional complaint, which the complaint failed to meet.
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 1846/15
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint for failure to substantiate fundamental rights violations and imposition of abuse fee for repeated ill-founded filings
2 BvR 263/21, 2 BvR 276/21, 2 BvR 284/21, 2 BvR 304/21
Inadmissible constitutional complaint: non-substantiation of rights violation and risk of abuse fee
1 BvR 2244/19
Inadmissibility of un-substantiated constitutional complaint and imposition of abuse fee for insulting, conspiracy-theoretic content.
2 BvR 923/24
Failure to substantiate alleged fundamental rights violation rendering constitutional complaint inadmissible under BVerfGG § 23(1) and § 92
1 BvR 3457/14
Constitutional complaint inadmissibility for insufficient substantiation and imposition of abuse fee for priority filing of unsubstantiated constitutional complaint with interim relief request

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BVerfGG

Cited in the dispositive as the statutory requirement for the substantiation of the constitutional complaint, which the complaint failed to meet.

§ 92 BVerfGG

Cited in the dispositive to establish the deficiency in the reasoning of the constitutional complaint regarding the alleged violation of fundamental rights.

§ 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Cited in the dispositive to impose a fine of 1,000 Euro on the representative for filing an obviously inadmissible complaint.

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: Offensichtliche Unzulässigkeit einer unzureichend begründeten Verfassungsbeschwerde - Auferlegung einer Missbrauchsgebühr iHv 1000 Euro zu Lasten des Bevollmächtigten

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen. Sie ist mangels einer den gesetzlichen Anforderungen (§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG) entsprechenden Begründung unzulässig. Dem Beschwerdevortrag fehlt es an einer hinreichend substantiierten sachbezogen-argumentativen Auseinandersetzung mit dem angegriffenen Urteil des Landgerichts anhand der verfassungsrechtlichen Maßstäbe, wie sie in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts konkretisiert worden sind. An keiner Stelle der umfangreichen Verfassungsbeschwerde zeigt der Beschwerdevortrag die konkrete Möglichkeit einer Verletzung spezifischen Verfassungsrechts auf. Stattdessen ist der Vortrag gekennzeichnet durch Pauschalisierungen, Worthülsen und Floskeln, die Ausbreitung einer offensichtlich nicht haltbaren Verschwörungstheorie und durch nichts belegte Manipulationsvorwürfe bis hin zum Falschvortrag.

Damit erledigt sich der Antrag der Beschwerdeführerin zu 3) auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung.

Dem Bevollmächtigten der Beschwerdeführer, Herrn Rechtsanwalt Prof. Dr. S. wird gemäß § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG eine Missbrauchsgebühr in Höhe von 1.000 € (in Worten: eintausend Euro) auferlegt, weil die Verfassungsbeschwerde offensichtlich unzulässig ist und die vorgebrachten Rügen ohne verfassungsrechtliche Substanz sind. Die Anrufung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts war deshalb für ihn erkennbar von vornherein aussichtslos.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.