Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 1126/17 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2017:rk20170803.1bvr112617 Generato dall'IA

Rejection of manifestly inadmissible recusal motions and non-admission of constitutional complaint without further reasoning under § 93d BVerfGG

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 1126/17
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 (First Senate, Third Chamber) dismissed a constitutional complaint without a further statement of reasons and rejected the associated applications for recusal of two judges as manifestly inadmissible. The dispute concerned a constitutional complaint that was deemed inadmissible on procedural grounds, accompanied by recusal motions against specific judges that were unsubstantiated, targeted non-existent or non-constituted court members, or otherwise failed to establish a credible suspicion of bias. Under the Federal Constitutional Court Act, specifically § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, the court exercised its discretion to omit detailed reasoning for the complaint, while the rejection of the recusal motions was based on the doctrine that judges involved in the initial business plan handling are not excluded from deciding on manifestly inadmissible recusal applications, and no decision is required for recusal requests targeting judges not part of the deciding chamber or who do not exist in that capacity.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Rejection of manifestly inadmissible recusal motions and non-admission of constitutional complaint without further reasoning under § 93d BVerfGG: The dispute concerned a constitutional complaint that was deemed inadmissible on procedural grounds, accompanied by recusal motions against specific judges that were unsubstantiated, targeted non-existent or non-constituted court members, or otherwise failed to establish a credible suspicion of bias. Under the Federal Constitutional Court Act, specifically § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, the court exercised its discretion to omit detailed reasoning for the complaint, while the rejection of the recusal motions was based on the doctrine that judges involved in the initial business plan handling are not excluded from deciding on manifestly inadmissible recusal applications, and no decision is required for recusal requests targeting judges not part of the deciding chamber or who do not exist in that capacity.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
domanda di ricusazione motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali atto processuale diritto alla risoluzione del contratto costituzionalità delle leggi restituzione in pristino

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 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 131, 239
BVerfGE 131, 239 ; BVerfGK 8, 59 ).
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 43/20
Recusal motion against non-deciding chamber judges dismissed as manifestly inadmissible
2 BvR 1183/20
Inadmissibility of recusal motion based solely on prior judicial participation and absence of reasoning for non-acceptance of constitutional complaint
2 BvR 2258/21
Inadmissibility of recusal motions against non-deciding judges and denial of legal aid in constitutional complaint
1 BvR 1452/16
Constitutional complaint and recusal motion: Inadmissibility of recusal without substantive partiality evidence and lack of acceptance criteria for constitutional complaint
2 BvR 2361/16
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint due to unsubstantiated judge recusal motion and lack of sufficient 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

Nichtannahme einer Verfassungsbeschwerde ohne weitere Begründung - Verwerfung eines offensichtlich unzulässigen Ablehnungsgesuchs unter Mitwirkung der abgelehnten Richter

[TENOR]

1. Die Ablehnungsgesuche gegen den Vizepräsidenten Kirchhof und den Richter Masing werden als unzulässig verworfen.

2. Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

1. Die Ablehnungsgesuche gegen die "Bundesverfassungsrichter (m/w) Kirchhof, Masing, Bauer" sind offensichtlich unzulässig. Sie enthalten 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 ). Die weiteren Ablehnungsgesuche betreffen zum Teil Richterinnen und Richter, die am Bundesverfassungsgericht gar nicht existieren ("Bauer") oder die keine Mitglieder der zur Entscheidung berufenen Kammer sind ("Eichberger, Baer, Britz"). Über sie muss daher nicht entschieden werden (vgl. BVerfGE 131, 239 ; 133, 377 ).

2. Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist nicht zur Entscheidung anzunehmen, weil sie unzulässig ist.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.