Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvQ 53/14 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2015:qk20150112.2bvq005314 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional interim relief against compulsory treatment inadmissible for failure to exhaust ordinary court jurisdiction

Numero d'incarto 2 BvQ 53/14
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 dismissed the application for interim relief, leaving the applicant without the requested constitutional protection. The case involved a petition for an *einstweilige Anordnung* against ongoing compulsory medical treatment, which the Court deemed inadmissible. The decision rested on the principle of subsidiarity, which applies to constitutional emergency protection; the applicant failed to demonstrate that they had exhausted the possibility of seeking expedited legal protection through the specialized ordinary courts prior to filing the constitutional complaint.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Constitutional interim relief against compulsory treatment inadmissible for failure to exhaust ordinary court jurisdiction: The case involved a petition for an *einstweilige Anordnung* against ongoing compulsory medical treatment, which the Court deemed inadmissible. The decision rested on the principle of subsidiarity, which applies to constitutional emergency protection; the applicant failed to demonstrate that they had exhausted the possibility of seeking expedited legal protection through the specialized ordinary courts prior to filing the constitutional complaint.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
procedimento sommario requisito costituzionale trattamento medico coattivo tutela legale procedimento pregiudiziale d'urgenza censura di violazione costituzionale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural rule cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a further detailed legal reasoning for the decision.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 102, 197
BVerfGE 102, 197 ) gilt auch für den vorgelagerten verfassungsrechtlichen Eilrechtsschutz (vgl.
Generato dall'IA
1 BvQ 1/16
Inadmissibility of constitutional interim relief due to insufficient substantiation and failure to exhaust judicial remedies
1 BvQ 4/17
Interim relief in expulsion proceedings: inadmissibility due to unexhausted ordinary legal remedies and lack of substantiation
1 BvQ 51/17
Inadmissibility of interim relief application for failure to meet statutory substantiation requirements
2 BvQ 31/17
Denial of interim relief where underlying constitutional complaint is inadmissible due to unexhausted ordinary judicial remedies
2 BvQ 22/15
Interim constitutional relief: Subsidiarity requirement mandating exhaustion of specialized judicial remedies under § 114 StVollzG

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Procedural rule cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a further detailed legal reasoning for 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

Ablehnung des Erlasses einer einstweiligen Anordnung wegen Subsidiarität

[GRUENDE]

Der Grundsatz der Subsidiarität der Verfassungsbeschwerde (vgl. BVerfGE 102, 197 ) gilt auch für den vorgelagerten verfassungsrechtlichen Eilrechtsschutz (vgl. BVerfG, Beschluss der 3. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 9. Dezember 2009 - 2 BvQ 84/09 -, juris; BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 30. Dezember 2002 - 2 BvQ 59/02 -, juris). Unabhängig davon, dass sich dem Antrag über den Umstand hinaus, dass der Antragsteller zwangsbehandelt wird, bereits kein entscheidungserheblicher Sachverhalt entnehmen lässt, ist der Antrag danach unzulässig, da nicht ersichtlich ist, dass der Antragsteller, wie es ihm obliegt, zuvor die Möglichkeit fachgerichtlichen Eilrechtsschutzes ausgeschöpft hätte.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.