Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 797/14 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2015:rk20150918.1bvr079714 Generato dall'IA

Reimbursement of constitutional complaint costs under Section 34a(3) BVerfGG where complaint was not admitted

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 797/14
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Constitutional Court denied the applicant's requests for the reimbursement of necessary legal expenses and for a temporary injunction, resulting in a dismissal of both petitions. The dispute concerned a constitutional complaint that was not admitted for decision and a separately rejected application for interim measures, where the applicant argued for cost recovery despite the lack of a favorable substantive outcome on the merits. Relying on Section 34a(3) of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, the court exercised its discretionary power to deny reimbursement, determining that a comprehensive assessment of all circumstances did not align with principles of equity or fairness for the specific factual configuration, thereby distinguishing the present case from prior jurisprudence that might otherwise support cost recovery.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 34a Abs 3 BVerfGG; Reimbursement of constitutional complaint costs under Section 34a(3) BVerfGG where complaint was not admitted: The dispute concerned a constitutional complaint that was not admitted for decision and a separately rejected application for interim measures, where the applicant argued for cost recovery despite the lack of a favorable substantive outcome on the merits. Relying on Section 34a(3) of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, the court exercised its discretionary power to deny reimbursement, determining that a comprehensive assessment of all circumstances did not align with principles of equity or fairness for the specific factual configuration, thereby distinguishing the present case from prior jurisprudence that might otherwise support cost recovery.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
rimborso delle spese motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali spese legali soccorso d'emergenza costituzionale giurisdizione costituzionale recupero dei costi

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 34a Abs 3 BVerfGG
Ablehnung der Auslagenerstattung aus Billigkeitserwägungen (§ 34a Abs 3 BVerfGG)
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 586/19
Reimbursement of constitutional complaint expenses denied due to administrative modification based on changed circumstances and lack of exhaustion of legal remedies
2 BvR 2128/18
Reimbursement of costs for unsuccessful constitutional complaint under § 34a Abs. 3 BVerfGG requiring special equity grounds
1 BvR 796/14
Denial of reimbursement for litigation expenses of non-admitted constitutional complaint and rejected interim relief based on Billigkeit under § 34a Abs. 3 BVerfGG
1 BvR 1378/20
Reimbursement of constitutional complaint costs upon completion: rejection for lack of evident prospects of success
2 BvR 987/10
Cost reimbursement despite dismissed constitutional complaint: contribution to clarifying a question of fundamental significance

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 der Auslagenerstattung aus Billigkeitserwägungen (§ 34a Abs 3 BVerfGG)

[GRUENDE]

Die Anträge auf Anordnung der Erstattung notwendiger Auslagen für die Verfassungsbeschwerde sowie den Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung haben keinen Erfolg. Nach § 34a Abs. 3 BVerfGG kann das Bundesverfassungsgericht volle oder teilweise Erstattung von Auslagen grundsätzlich auch dann anordnen, wenn sich eine Verfassungsbeschwerde nicht als begründet erwiesen hat. Die Entscheidung, ob die Auslagen dem Grunde nach zu erstatten sind, steht insoweit im Ermessen des Gerichts und ist nach Billigkeitsgesichtspunkten zu entscheiden. Bei Gesamtwürdigung aller Umstände entspricht es vorliegend nicht der Billigkeit, die Erstattung der dem Antragsteller entstandenen notwendigen Auslagen für die nicht zur Entscheidung angenommene Verfassungsbeschwerde sowie den gesondert abgelehnten Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung anzuordnen. Die vom Bevollmächtigten des Beschwerdeführers in seinem Antrag zitierte Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zur Auslagenerstattung betrifft andere Fallgestaltungen.