Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 1083/17 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2017:rk20170731.1bvr108317 Generato dall'IA

Inadmissible constitutional complaint due to failure to engage with appellate court's independent reasoning

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 1083/17
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 take up the constitutional complaint, leaving the challenged decision in force. The case involved a complaint against an appellate administrative court judgment, where the complainant had previously challenged a lower court's ruling. The complaint was deemed inadmissible because it failed to substantiate its arguments; specifically, the complainant argued solely against the reasons given by the first-instance administrative court and did not engage with the appellate court’s independent or deepened reasoning that upheld the lower court’s outcome. The decisive legal basis for the rejection was § 23 (1) sentence 2 and § 92 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), which require a substantiated explanation of how the constitutional right was violated, a standard not met due to the lack of engagement with the final instance's argumentation.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Inadmissible constitutional complaint due to failure to engage with appellate court's independent reasoning: The case involved a complaint against an appellate administrative court judgment, where the complainant had previously challenged a lower court's ruling. The complaint was deemed inadmissible because it failed to substantiate its arguments; specifically, the complainant argued solely against the reasons given by the first-instance administrative court and did not engage with the appellate court’s independent or deepened reasoning that upheld the lower court’s outcome. The decisive legal basis for the rejection was § 23 (1) sentence 2 and § 92 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), which require a substantiated explanation of how the constitutional right was violated, a standard not met due to the lack of engagement with the final instance's argumentation.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
censura costituzionale reclamo amministrativo censura di violazione costituzionale impugnabilità di decisioni incidentali obbligo di porre delle domande conformità costituzionale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a further detailed reasoning for the non-acceptance decision.
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 2432/18
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint for insufficient substantive engagement with the reasoning of the challenged lower-court decisions
2 BvR 327/20
Rejection of constitutional complaint as evidently inadmissible due to insufficient legal reasoning
2 BvR 1948/20
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint for failure to substantiate specific fundamental rights violation against ordinary law application
2 BvR 847/19
Constitutional complaint inadmissible for insufficient substantiation and failure to submit lower court decision
2 BvR 326/20
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint due to lack of reasoned argument and denial of lawyer appointment for lack of objective necessity

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a further detailed reasoning for the non-acceptance 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: Substantiierungsmangel (§§ 23 Abs 1 S 2, 92 BVerfGG) bei unzureichender Auseinandersetzung mit argumentativer Begründung des angegriffenen Berufungsurteils

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist mangels substantiierten Vorbringens unzulässig. Denn die Begründung der Verfassungsbeschwerde wendet sich argumentativ alleine gegen die in der Entscheidung des Verwaltungsgerichts genannten Gründe. Sie setzt sich mit der Entscheidung des Oberverwaltungsgerichts, das den Einwendungen der Beschwerdeführerin teilweise argumentativ gefolgt ist, die Entscheidung des Verwaltungsgerichts aber letztlich mit eigener bzw. gegenüber der erstinstanzlichen Entscheidung vertiefter Argumentation bestätigt hat, aber nicht auseinander und genügt den Anforderungen an die Begründung der Verfassungsbeschwerde daher nicht.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.