Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 614/16 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2016:rk20160919.2bvr061416 Generato dall'IA

Recusal motion deemed plainly inadmissible without judge statements due to insufficient grounds for bias

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 614/16
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 constitutional complaint without accepting it for decision and rejected the motion for recusal of the Court's members as inadmissible, resulting in a final and unappealable judgment against the petitioner. The case involved a challenge to the composition of the bench via a recusal application, which the Court deemed plainly inadmissible because the submitted arguments were wholly unsuitable to substantiate a reasonable doubt regarding impartiality. Under the governing constitutional procedural law, the Court held that when a recusal motion is obviously inadmissible, the recused judges are not excluded from deciding on the motion, and no official statement from the recused judges is required before the rejection is rendered.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Recusal motion deemed plainly inadmissible without judge statements due to insufficient grounds for bias: The case involved a challenge to the composition of the bench via a recusal application, which the Court deemed plainly inadmissible because the submitted arguments were wholly unsuitable to substantiate a reasonable doubt regarding impartiality. Under the governing constitutional procedural law, the Court held that when a recusal motion is obviously inadmissible, the recused judges are not excluded from deciding on the motion, and no official statement from the recused judges is required before the rejection is rendered.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
domanda di ricusazione dubbio ragionevole casi di esclusione motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali mancata prova di parzialità azione di separazione

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Cited in the dispositive to justify the waiver of a further reasoning for the decision.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 131, 239
BVerfGE 131, 239 ; BVerfGK 8, 59 ).
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 198/17
Inadmissibility of recusal motion against constitutional judges for lack of substantive bias grounds
1 BvR 2299/20
Inadmissibility of judicial recusal motion lacking substantive justification
2 BvR 1000/22
Inadmissibility of judicial recusal motion lacking credible basis for impartiality bias
RiZ (R) 2/24
Dismissal of recusal motion as evidently inadmissible for failure to substantiate bias
2 BvR 882/23
Recusal motion against non-participating judges deemed manifestly inadmissible without substantive review

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Cited in the dispositive to justify the waiver of a further 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

Nichtannahmebeschluss und Verwerfung eines Ablehnungsgesuchs - Teilnahme der abgelehnten Richter sowie Entbehrlichkeit einer dienstlichen Stellungnahme bei offensichtlicher Unzulässigkeit des Befangenheitsantrags

[TENOR]

Das Ablehnungsgesuch gegen die Mitglieder des Bundesverfassungsgerichts wird als unzulässig verworfen.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Das Ablehnungsgesuch gegen die Mitglieder des Bundesverfassungsgerichts ist offensichtlich unzulässig. Es enthält lediglich Ausführungen, die zur Begründung der Besorgnis der Befangenheit gänzlich ungeeignet sind. Bei offensichtlicher Unzulässigkeit bedarf es keiner dienstlichen Stellungnahme der abgelehnten Richter. Diese sind auch bei der Entscheidung über das offensichtlich unzulässige Ablehnungsgesuch - soweit sie geschäftsplanmäßig dazu berufen sind - nicht ausgeschlossen (vgl. BVerfGE 131, 239 ; BVerfGK 8, 59 ).

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.