Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 456/17 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2017:rk20170426.1bvr045617 Generato dall'IA

Failure to substantiate personal impact of G10 surveillance norms invalidates constitutional complaint

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 456/17
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, resulting in the prevailing effect of the challenged legal provision. The dispute involved a complaint directed indirectly against § 6(1) sentence 5 of the Act on the Protection of the Constitutional Order (G10), a statute governing surveillance of telecommunications. The court determined that the applicant failed to meet the substantive requirements of §§ 23(1), 92, and 93d BVerfGG, specifically by failing to substantiate that he was personally affected by the specific norm in question.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 92 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Failure to substantiate personal impact of G10 surveillance norms invalidates constitutional complaint: Das Beschwerdevorbringen genügt den Substantiierungsanforderungen der § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Halbsatz 1, § 92 BVerfGG nicht (vgl. BVerfGE 99, 84 ; 108, 370 ; 140, 229 ). Insbesondere legt der Beschwerdeführer nicht hinreichend substantiiert dar, dass er von § 6 Abs. 1 Satz 5 G 10 selbst betroffen ist.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
requisito costituzionale ricorso costituzionale all'estero tutela legale diritto alla libertà violazione dei diritti della personalità audizione personale obbligatoria

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 92 BVerfGG
1 Satz 2 Halbsatz 1, § 92 BVerfGG nicht (vgl.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Von einer weiteren Begründung wird nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 99, 84
BVerfGE 99, 84 ; 108, 370 ; 140, 229 ).
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 458/17
Insufficient substantiation of personal affectedness by § 6(1) Sentence 5 G 10 in constitutional complaint against parallel decision
1 BvR 628/23
Constitutional complaint rejected for insufficient substantiation: failure to apply established fundamental rights standards to specific facts
1 BvR 963/16
Constitutional complaint rejected for failure to substantiate fundamental rights violation
2 BvR 2230/21
Insufficiently reasoned constitutional complaint: failure to substantiate violation of constitutional rights under §§ 23 Abs. 1 S. 2, 92 BVerfGG
1 BvR 2771/18
Failure to substantiate state duty to balance Zero-Day exploitation for surveillance against IT system integrity renders constitutional complaint inadmissible

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

Nichtannahme einer mittelbar gegen § 6 Abs 1 S 5 G10 2001 gerichteten Verfassungsbeschwerde mangels substantiierte Darlegung, von jener Norm selbst betroffen zu sein

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Das Beschwerdevorbringen genügt den Substantiierungsanforderungen der § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Halbsatz 1, § 92 BVerfGG nicht (vgl. BVerfGE 99, 84 ; 108, 370 ; 140, 229 ). Insbesondere legt der Beschwerdeführer nicht hinreichend substantiiert dar, dass er von § 6 Abs. 1 Satz 5 G 10 selbst betroffen ist.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.