Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvQ 21/16 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2016:qk20160628.1bvq002116 Generato dall'IA

Rejection of provisional order for failure to substantiate § 32 BVerfGG and warning of abuse penalty under § 34 BVerfGG

Numero d'incarto 1 BvQ 21/16
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 German Federal Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's request for a provisional order, finding that the applicant had failed to demonstrate the requirements under § 32(1) BVerfGG. The case involved a motion for interim relief which the court deemed manifestly inadmissible and hopeless, thereby obstructing the efficient administration of justice and delaying fundamental rights protection for other citizens. The decision was based on the strict procedural standards for interim relief and included a warning that future manifestly hopeless applications of this nature could result in the imposition of a penalty fee under § 34(2) BVerfGG. The ruling is final and unappealable.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 32 Abs 1 BVerfGG, § 34 Abs 2 BVerfGG; Rejection of provisional order for failure to substantiate § 32 BVerfGG and warning of abuse penalty under § 34 BVerfGG: The case involved a motion for interim relief which the court deemed manifestly inadmissible and hopeless, thereby obstructing the efficient administration of justice and delaying fundamental rights protection for other citizens. The decision was based on the strict procedural standards for interim relief and included a warning that future manifestly hopeless applications of this nature could result in the imposition of a penalty fee under § 34(2) BVerfGG. The ruling is final and unappealable.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
diritti fondamentali decisioni incidentali procedimento sommario amministrazione della giustizia requisito costituzionale e-justice

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 32 Abs 1 BVerfGG
Cited as the primary legal basis for the rejection of the request for a provisional order due to lack of demonstrated requirements.
§ 34 Abs 2 BVerfGG
Cited in the second dispositive order to warn that a penalty fee may be imposed for future manifestly hopeless applications.
Generato dall'IA
2 BvQ 28/26
Constitutional application for interim relief rejected for failure to substantiate a likely violation of fundamental rights
2 BvQ 63/22
Constitutional complaint for interim relief rejected due to insufficient substantiation of § 32(1) BVerfGG requirements
2 BvR 580/21
Constitutional complaint for lack of sufficient substantiation; non-acceptance and warning of abuse penalty
1 BvQ 66/17
Denial of interim relief due to manifest lack of substantiation of constitutional complaint
1 BvR 1390/17
Interim constitutional relief rejected for lack of subsidiarity and failure to demonstrate imminent severe disadvantage in pending civil proceedings

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG

Cited as the primary legal basis for the rejection of the request for a provisional order due to lack of demonstrated requirements.

§ 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Cited in the second dispositive order to warn that a penalty fee may be imposed for future manifestly hopeless applications.

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 eA mangels Darlegung der Voraussetzungen des § 32 Abs 1 BVerfGG - Hinweis auf Möglichkeit der Auferlegung einer Missbrauchsgebühr gem § 34 Abs 2 BVerfGG

[TENOR]

Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung wird abgelehnt.

[GRUENDE]

Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung wird abgelehnt, weil die Voraussetzungen des § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG nicht dargelegt sind.

Die Beschwerdeführerin wird für künftige Verfahren darauf hingewiesen, dass ihr bei Vorliegen der Voraussetzungen des § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG eine Missbrauchsgebühr auferlegt werden kann. Ein Missbrauch liegt unter anderem dann vor, wenn der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung offensichtlich unzulässig ist und seine Einlegung von einsichtigen Personen als völlig aussichtslos angesehen wird. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht muss es nicht hinnehmen, dass es in der Erfüllung seiner Aufgaben, nämlich grundsätzliche Verfassungsfragen zu entscheiden und - wo nötig - die Grundrechte Einzelner durchzusetzen, durch offensichtlich aussichtslose Anträge behindert wird und dadurch anderen Bürgerinnen und Bürgern den ihnen zukommenden Grundrechtsschutz nur verzögert gewähren kann (vgl. BVerfGK 3, 219 ; 6, 219 f.; 10, 94 ; 14, 468 ; stRspr).

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.