Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 458/17 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2017:rk20170426.1bvr045817 Generato dall'IA

Insufficient substantiation of personal affectedness by § 6(1) Sentence 5 G 10 in constitutional complaint against parallel decision

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 458/17
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, leaving the underlying proceedings intact. The complainant challenged a parallel decision by the Federal Intelligence Service, alleging a violation of fundamental rights based on the application of the Federal Intelligence Act. The Court dismissed the filing on procedural grounds, holding that the submission failed to meet the specific substantiation requirements mandated by the Federal Constitutional Court Act, as the complainant did not sufficiently demonstrate that she was directly affected by the statutory provision governing the agency's operations.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 92 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Insufficient substantiation of personal affectedness by § 6(1) Sentence 5 G 10 in constitutional complaint against parallel decision: 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 die Beschwerdeführerin nicht hinreichend substantiiert dar, dass sie von § 6 Abs. 1 Satz 5 G 10 selbst betroffen ist.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
requisito costituzionale diritti fondamentali violazione dei diritti procedurali ricorso costituzionale all'estero presupposti legali censura formulata in modo carente

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
2 BvR 1879/22
Constitutional complaint not accepted for lack of substantiation; recusal request rejected for baseless allegations of bias in parallel proceedings
1 BvR 963/16
Constitutional complaint rejected for failure to substantiate fundamental rights violation
1 BvR 628/23
Constitutional complaint rejected for insufficient substantiation: failure to apply established fundamental rights standards to specific facts
1 BvR 456/17
Failure to substantiate personal impact of G10 surveillance norms invalidates constitutional complaint
1 BvR 1643/19
Constitutional complaint refused for lack of individual merit under § 93d BVerfGG as parallel 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: Parallelentscheidung

[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 die Beschwerdeführerin nicht hinreichend substantiiert dar, dass sie 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.