Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 1154/13 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2016:rk20160620.2bvr115413 Generato dall'IA

Inadequate substantiation and unexhausted legal remedy in challenge to detention in psychiatric hospital versus closed nursing home

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 1154/13
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 declined to accept the constitutional complaint for decision and denied the application for legal aid, leaving the respondent's continued detention in a psychiatric institution in force. The petitioner challenged his mandatory placement in a psychiatric facility rather than a secure care facility and requested its conversion into an indefinite directive within probation supervision, arguing that the alternative arrangement would better address the public's need for protection; he additionally objected to the conditions of his custody. The court rejected the complaint on procedural grounds, finding the petition insufficiently substantiated under §§ 23 Abs. 1 S. 2, 92 BVerfGG because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the proposed secure care alternative could durably satisfy the public's security requirements, and further found a failure to exhaust available legal remedies regarding complaints about the conditions of confinement.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 92 BVerfGG, § 68b Abs. 2 Satz 4 StGB, § 56c Abs. 3 Nr. 2 StGB, §§ 114, 121 ZPO, § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BVerfGG; Inadequate substantiation and unexhausted legal remedy in challenge to detention in psychiatric hospital versus closed nursing home: The petitioner challenged his mandatory placement in a psychiatric facility rather than a secure care facility and requested its conversion into an indefinite directive within probation supervision, arguing that the alternative arrangement would better address the public's need for protection; he additionally objected to the conditions of his custody. The court rejected the complaint on procedural grounds, finding the petition insufficiently substantiated under §§ 23 Abs. 1 S. 2, 92 BVerfGG because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the proposed secure care alternative could durably satisfy the public's security requirements, and further found a failure to exhaust available legal remedies regarding complaints about the conditions of confinement.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
ricovero psichiatrico forzato carcerazione di sicurezza motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali istituto di cura gratuito patrocinio presupposto processuale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 92 BVerfGG
Procedural requirement for the reasoning of the constitutional complaint that was not met.
§ 68b Abs. 2 Satz 4 StGB
Der Beschwerdeführer erstrebt die Beendigung seiner Unterbringung in einem psychiatrischen Krankenhaus bei gleichzeitiger Überweisung in ein geschlossenes Pflegeheim im Wege einer unbefristeten Weisung im Rahmen der Führungsaufsicht gemäß § 68b Abs. 2 Satz 4 StGB in Verbindung mit § 56c Abs.
§ 56c Abs. 3 Nr. 2 StGB
2 Satz 4 StGB in Verbindung mit § 56c Abs. 3 Nr. 2 StGB.
§§ 114, 121 ZPO
Basis for the denial of the application for legal aid and assignment of a lawyer due to lack of sufficient prospect of success.
§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BVerfGG
Main ground for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint, citing the requirement for sufficient substantiation.
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 725/16
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint challenging § 63 StGB psychiatric commitment for insufficient substantiation of lack of treatment prospects
2 BvR 1672/15
Inadequate substantiation of psychiatric care availability and retraumatization risk failing to establish violation of right to effective legal protection
2 BvR 2462/13
Psychiatric confinement continuation: Insufficient justification of danger prognosis under proportionality principles after decades of detention
2 BvR 1280/15
Inadequate reasoning for prolonged psychiatric confinement and failure to weigh less restrictive measures under Article 2(2) GG
2 StR 484/20
Psychiatric hospitalization denial: evidentiary sufficiency of prior convictions and requirements for deviating from expert opinion in danger prognosis

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§§ 114, 121 ZPO

Basis for the denial of the application for legal aid and assignment of a lawyer due to lack of sufficient prospect of success.

§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BVerfGG

Main ground for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint, citing the requirement for sufficient substantiation.

§ 92 BVerfGG

Procedural requirement for the reasoning of the constitutional complaint that was not met.

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: Unzureichende Substantiierung der Verfassungsbeschwerde (§§ 23 Abs 1 S 2, 92 BVerfGG) - Sicherungsbedürfnis der Allgemeinheit bei Überweisung des Beschwerdeführers in ein geschlossenes Pflegeheim anstelle seiner gegenwärtigen Unterbringung in einem psychiatrischen Krankenhaus - zudem mangelnde Rechtswegerschöpfung

[TENOR]

Der Antrag auf Bewilligung von Prozesskostenhilfe und Beiordnung von Rechtsanwalt R… wird abgelehnt, weil die Rechtsverfolgung keine hinreichende Aussicht auf Erfolg bietet (vgl. §§ 114, 121 ZPO).

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen. Sie genügt nicht den Begründungsanforderungen gemäß § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG. Der Beschwerdeführer erstrebt die Beendigung seiner Unterbringung in einem psychiatrischen Krankenhaus bei gleichzeitiger Überweisung in ein geschlossenes Pflegeheim im Wege einer unbefristeten Weisung im Rahmen der Führungsaufsicht gemäß § 68b Abs. 2 Satz 4 StGB in Verbindung mit § 56c Abs. 3 Nr. 2 StGB. Dass damit dem Sicherungsbedürfnis der Allgemeinheit, insbesondere im Fall weisungswidrigen Verhaltens, dauerhaft Rechnung getragen werden kann, ist aber nicht dargetan. Soweit der Beschwerdeführer sich gegen die Bedingungen des Vollzuges seiner Unterbringung wendet, fehlt es an der Darlegung der Erschöpfung des insoweit eröffneten Rechtsweges.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.