Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 1884/11 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2014:rk20140711.1bvr188411 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional limits on material preclusion in administrative procedure and application of Federal Roads Act § 17a No. 7

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 1884/11
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 (First Senate, First Chamber) dismissed the constitutional complaint by non-acceptance order, thereby upholding the lower court's application of administrative procedural law against the complainant. The dispute centered on the constitutionality of a material preclusion provision under administrative procedural law and its specific application via § 17a No. 7 Sentence 1 of the Federal Roads Act (FStrG), where the complainant challenged the denial of a claim due to procedural bar. The Court held that no fundamental constitutional significance attached to the case as the constitutional requirements for such preclusion rules had been sufficiently clarified in prior precedent (the *Sasbach* decision), and it found no constitutional defect in the specific handling of the statutory provision, rendering the judgment unchallengeable.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Constitutional limits on material preclusion in administrative procedure and application of Federal Roads Act § 17a No. 7: The dispute centered on the constitutionality of a material preclusion provision under administrative procedural law and its specific application via § 17a No. 7 Sentence 1 of the Federal Roads Act (FStrG), where the complainant challenged the denial of a claim due to procedural bar. The Court held that no fundamental constitutional significance attached to the case as the constitutional requirements for such preclusion rules had been sufficiently clarified in prior precedent (the *Sasbach* decision), and it found no constitutional defect in the specific handling of the statutory provision, rendering the judgment unchallengeable.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
limiti costituzionali atto processuale reclamo amministrativo previo istanza d'interpretazione vizio di procedura censura di violazione costituzionale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG
Cited as the procedural basis for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint due to the absence of the statutory prerequisites for a decision on the merits.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Cited to justify the omission of a further reasoned explanation in the dispositive.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 61, 82
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 361/12
Material preclusion in association litigation against infrastructure plans barred by EU environmental directives and subsidiary constitutional review
1 BvR 791/11
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint for substantive defects and abuse of procedure in road law dispute.
9 B 12/10
Preclusion of late natu
1 BvR 2734/20
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint challenging assembly ban for failure to prove public accessibility of highway construction site under Art. 8 GG
9 A 14.25, 9 A 14.25 (9 A 9.23)
Validity of preclusion of late factual submissions in highway approval litigation and sufficiency of legal framing for hearsay evidence in objection to hearing proceedings

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Cited as the procedural basis for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint due to the absence of the statutory prerequisites for a decision on the merits.

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Cited to justify the omission of a further reasoned explanation in the dispositive.

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: Kein verfassungsrechtlicher Klärungsbedarf bzgl verwaltungsverfahrensrechtlicher Vorschriften mit materieller Präklusionswirkung - hier zudem keine verfassungsrechtlichen Bedenken gegen fachgerichtliche Handhabung des § 17a Nr 7 S 1 FStrG

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen, weil die Voraussetzungen des § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG nicht erfüllt sind.

Der Verfassungsbeschwerde kommt keine grundsätzliche verfassungsrechtliche Bedeutung zu. Die verfassungsrechtlichen Anforderungen an eine verwaltungsverfahrensrechtliche Vorschrift, die eine materielle Präklusion vorsieht, und an ihre Handhabung hat das Bundesverfassungsgericht im Sasbach-Beschluss (BVerfGE 61, 82) ausführlich dargestellt; weitergehenden verfassungsrechtlichen Klärungsbedarf zeigt die Verfassungsbeschwerde nicht auf.

Die Annahme der Verfassungsbeschwerde ist auch nicht zur Durchsetzung der Grundrechte des Beschwerdeführers angezeigt. Insbesondere ist die Handhabung des § 17a Nr. 7 Satz 1 FStrG im vorliegenden Fall verfassungsrechtlich nicht zu beanstanden.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.