Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 93/16 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2017:rk20170517.2bvr009316 Generato dall'IA

Abusive constitutional complaint: Adjudication of manifestly unsubstantiated filing and imposition of surcharge under § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 93/16
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Inammissibile (Inadmissible)
Spese processuali a carico del ricorrente / reclamante
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Constitutional Court refused to accept the constitutional complaint, finding it inadmissible due to a lack of substantive justification under §§ 23, 92 BVerfGG, and imposed a surcharge of €2,600 on the complainant under § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG. The dispute involved a repeat filer who submitted an obviously unsubstantiated constitutional complaint, rendering the petition hopeless and the request for restoration to the previous status moot. The court determined that the filing was an abuse of process that obstructed the court's capacity and delayed fundamental rights protection for others, citing prior decisions where the same individual had already been penalized for similar conduct. </think> The Federal Constitutional Court refused to accept the constitutional complaint, finding it inadmissible due to a lack of substantive justification under §§ 23, 92 BVerfGG, and imposed a surcharge of €2,600 on the complainant under § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG. The dispute involved a repeat filer who submitted an obviously unsubstantiated constitutional complaint, rendering the petition hopeless and the request for restoration to the previous status moot. The court determined that the filing was an abuse of process that obstructed the court's capacity and delayed fundamental rights protection for others, citing prior decisions where the same individual had already been penalized for similar conduct.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 92 BVerfGG, § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG; Abusive constitutional complaint: Adjudication of manifestly unsubstantiated filing and imposition of surcharge under § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG: 2 BVerfGG. The dispute involved a repeat filer who submitted an obviously unsubstantiated constitutional complaint, rendering the petition hopeless and the request for restoration to the previous status moot. The court determined that the filing was an abuse of process that obstructed the court's capacity and delayed fundamental rights protection for others, citing prior decisions where the same individual had already been penalized for similar conduct. </think> The Federal Constitutional Court refused to accept the constitutional complaint, finding it inadmissible due to a lack of substantive justification under §§ 23, 92 BVerfGG, and imposed a surcharge of €2,600 on the complainant under § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG. The dispute involved a repeat filer who submitted an obviously unsubstantiated constitutional complaint, rendering the petition hopeless and the request for restoration to the previous status moot. The court determined that the filing was an abuse of process that obstructed the court's capacity and delayed fundamental rights protection for others, citing prior decisions where the same individual had already been penalized for similar conduct.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali abuso del processo diritto di petizione fondatezza materiale diritti fondamentali inoltro di querela penale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 92 BVerfGG
1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG entsprechenden Begründung unzulässig ist.
§ 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG
Cited as the legal basis for imposing a surcharge of €2,600 for the abusive filing.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Cited in the final order to justify the omission of further reasoning.
§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG
Cited as the basis for declaring the constitutional complaint inadmissible due to lack of sufficient substantiation.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 3127/13
Januar 2014 - 1 BvR 3127/13 -;
2 BvR 309/14
Juni 2014 - 2 BvR 309/14 -; Beschluss der 2.
1 BvR 541/15
April 2015 - 1 BvR 541/15 -; Beschluss der 3.
1 BvR 2715/16
Dezember 2016 - 1 BvR 2715/16 -).
1 BvR 2358/08
Constitutional complaint over telecom data transfer fees rejected for lack of substantiation; abuse fee imposed for excessive, repetitive filings
2 BvR 374/16
Abuse of constitutional complaint by unsubstantiated repetitive filing in a complaint-forcing proceeding
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 2567/24
Abuse of constitutional complaint: manifestly unsubstantiated filing and abuse fee imposition under BVerfGG § 34 Abs. 2
1 BvR 2557/24
Unsubstantiated constitutional complaint rejected; abuse fee imposed for boilerplate reasoning
2 BvR 374/16
Abuse of constitutional complaint by unsubstantiated repetitive filing in a complaint-forcing proceeding
1 BvR 2070/10
Unsubstantiated constitutional complaint challenging administrative fine; admissibility under BVerfGG and abusive litigation
2 BvR 1854/21, 2 BvR 1855/21, 2 BvR 1856/21, 2 BvR 1857/21, 2 BvR 1858/21, 2 BvR 1859/21, 2 BvR 1966/21, 2 BvR 1974/21, 2 BvR 2091/21
Manifestly unsubstantiated constitutional complaints: procedural inadmissibility and risk of abuse fee under § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG

Cited as the basis for declaring the constitutional complaint inadmissible due to lack of sufficient substantiation.

§ 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Cited as the legal basis for imposing a surcharge of €2,600 for the abusive filing.

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Cited in the final order to justify the omission of further reasoning.

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: Missbräuchlichkeit der Einlegung einer offensichtlich unsubstantiierten Verfassungsbeschwerde - Wiederholungsfall - Auferlegung einer Missbrauchsgebühr iHv 2600 Euro

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen, weil sie mangels einer den Anforderungen der § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG entsprechenden Begründung unzulässig ist. Auf den Antrag auf Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand kommt es daher nicht an.

Dem Beschwerdeführer wird gemäß § 34 Abs. 2 BVerfGG eine Missbrauchsgebühr in Höhe von 2.600 € (in Worten: zweitausendsechshundert Euro) auferlegt.

[GRUENDE]

Die mit der Verfassungsbeschwerde vorgebrachten Rügen sind ohne jede verfassungsrechtliche Substanz, und die Anrufung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts ist deshalb für den Beschwerdeführer erkennbar offensichtlich aussichtslos. Auf die möglichen Konsequenzen substanzloser Verfassungsbeschwerden ist der Beschwerdeführer nicht nur in zahlreichen Beschlüssen hingewiesen worden, sondern es wurde bereits mehrfach gegen ihn eine Missbrauchsgebühr verhängt (vgl. BVerfG, Beschluss der 1. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 14. Januar 2014 - 1 BvR 3127/13 -;

Beschluss der 1. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 25. Juni 2014 - 2 BvR 309/14 -; Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 7. April 2015 - 1 BvR 541/15 -; Beschluss der 3. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 29. Dezember 2016 - 1 BvR 2715/16 -). Das Bundesverfassungsgericht muss es nicht hinnehmen, dass es durch eine derart sinnentleerte Inanspruchnahme seiner Arbeitskapazität bei der Erfüllung seiner Aufgaben behindert wird und dadurch anderen Rechtsuchenden den ihnen zukommenden Grundrechtsschutz nur verzögert gewähren kann (vgl. BVerfGK 3, 219 ; 6, 219 ; 10, 94 ;

BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 29. Juni 2010 - 1 BvR 2358/08 -, juris; Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 19. Dezember 2016 - 2 BvR 374/16 -, juris).

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.