Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvQ 45/15 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2015:qk20151214.2bvq004515 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional complaint: Interim relief denied for lack of substantiation and recusal motions rejected for insufficient bias allegations

Numero d'incarto 2 BvQ 45/15
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 a temporary injunction and rejected the motions for recusal of three judges as inadmissible, resulting in a complete defeat for the applicant. The dispute involved a constitutional complaint where the applicant sought interim relief but failed to substantiate that the main action was neither inadmissible nor manifestly unfounded; additionally, the recusal requests against specific constitutional court judges were deemed insufficient because the provided arguments were entirely unsuitable to establish a concern of bias. The decisive legal basis relied on the procedural requirement for a temporary injunction to include a substantive demonstration of the prospects of success in the main proceedings, and the strict standard requiring specific, adequate grounds to justify the recusal of judges due to suspicion of bias, as previously established in constitutional jurisprudence.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Constitutional complaint: Interim relief denied for lack of substantiation and recusal motions rejected for insufficient bias allegations: Die Ablehnungsgesuche gegen die Richter des Bundesverfassungsgerichts Landau, Kessal-Wulf und König werden als unzulässig verworfen, weil sie lediglich Ausführungen enthalten, die zur Begründung der Besorgnis der Befangenheit gänzlich ungeeignet sind (vgl. BVerfGE 11, 1 ; BVerfGK 8, 59 ; BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 22. April 2009 - 1 BvR 887/09 -, juris).

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
domanda di ricusazione motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali procedimento sommario argomentazione nel merito presupposto processuale rigetto provvisorio dell'opposizione

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 11, 1
BVerfGE 11, 1 ; BVerfGK 8, 59 ; BVerfG, Beschluss der 2.
1 BvR 887/09
April 2009 - 1 BvR 887/09 -, juris).
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 43/19
Denial of interim relief for insufficient substantiation that constitutional complaint is not obviously unfounded regarding lower court's interpretation of substantive law
1 BvR 2133/25
Constitutional complaint and recusal motion for unsubstantiated bias dismissed for lack of suitable grounds
2 BvR 1833/22
Insufficient substantiation of constitutional complaint and baseless recusal motions against constitutional court judges
2 BvR 2248/21
Constitutional complaint rejected for insufficient substantiation; recusal motions against non-members of the deciding chamber deemed manifestly inadmissible
2 BvQ 101/18
Constitutional interim relief denied for failure to substantiate the principle of subsidiarity of constitutional complaints

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 bei unzureichenden Darlegungen zur Erfolgsaussicht in der Hauptsache - Verwerfung unzureichend begründeter Ablehnungsgesuche

[TENOR]

1. Die Ablehnungsgesuche gegen die Richter des Bundesverfassungsgerichts Landau, Kessal-Wulf und König werden als unzulässig verworfen, weil sie lediglich Ausführungen enthalten, die zur Begründung der Besorgnis der Befangenheit gänzlich ungeeignet sind (vgl. BVerfGE 11, 1 ; BVerfGK 8, 59 ; BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 22. April 2009 - 1 BvR 887/09 -, juris).

2. Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung wird abgelehnt, weil der Antragsteller nicht substantiiert dargelegt hat, dass der - gegebenenfalls noch zu stellende - Antrag in der Hauptsache weder unzulässig noch offensichtlich unbegründet ist (vgl. BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 20. August 2015 - 1 BvQ 28/15 -, juris; Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 30. September 2015 - 2 BvQ 29/15 -, juris).

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.