Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 492/18 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2018:rk20180416.2bvr049218 Generato dall'IA

Denial of appointment as legal guardian for constitutional complaint for failure to demonstrate subjective necessity and objective usefulness

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 492/18
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 rejected the applicant's constitutional complaint without further reasoning and denied the request for interim relief, leaving the applicant to represent herself or hire a lawyer, as the court found the application for appointing a legal guardian insufficient. The dispute concerned the admissibility of a constitutional complaint where the applicant sought the appointment of a third party as a legal guardian under Section 22(1) sentence 4 of the Federal Constitutional Court Rules of Procedure due to claimed necessity, without demonstrating why representation by an attorney or university law professor was unreasonable. The Court applied the doctrine that such appointment is discretionary and requires a showing of both objective usefulness and subjective necessity, finding these thresholds unmet, and dismissed the complaint under Section 93d(1) sentence 3 of the same Act as an unreasoned non-acceptance decision, which is final and unchallengeable.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 22 Abs. 1 Satz 4 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs 1 S 3 BVerfGG; Denial of appointment as legal guardian for constitutional complaint for failure to demonstrate subjective necessity and objective usefulness: The dispute concerned the admissibility of a constitutional complaint where the applicant sought the appointment of a third party as a legal guardian under Section 22(1) sentence 4 of the Federal Constitutional Court Rules of Procedure due to claimed necessity, without demonstrating why representation by an attorney or university law professor was unreasonable. The Court applied the doctrine that such appointment is discretionary and requires a showing of both objective usefulness and subjective necessity, finding these thresholds unmet, and dismissed the complaint under Section 93d(1) sentence 3 of the same Act as an unreasoned non-acceptance decision, which is final and unchallengeable.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
nomina del curatore requisito costituzionale rappresentanza legale domanda di designazione procedimento sommario censura di violazione costituzionale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 22 Abs. 1 Satz 4 BVerfGG
Dem ausdrücklichen Antrag auf Zulassung als Beistand nach § 22 Abs. 1 Satz 4 BVerfGG ist nicht zu entsprechen.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Von einer weiteren Begründung wird nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.
§ 93d Abs 1 S 3 BVerfGG
Procedural basis for dismissing the constitutional complaint without further reasoning.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 8, 92
BVerfGE 8, 92 ; 68, 360 ; BVerfG, Beschluss der 2.
2 BvR 1245/15
Prison disciplinary measure based on unadjudicated offense; constitutional complaint inadmissible for failure to file hearing objection
2 BvR 800/17
Insufficient substantiation of constitutional complaint against refusal of admission of chosen representative as defense counsel
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 1019/21
Constitutional complaint non-admission without reasoning and denial of auxiliary counsel request
2 BvR 932/17
Denial of legal aid in constitutional complaint proceedings due to absence of necessity for legal representation
1 BvR 497/26
Constitutional complaint rejected for lack of substantiation; refusal of admission of non-lawyer assistant as procedural representative
1 BvR 2385/17
Denial of representative admission for failure to prove objective usefulness and subjective necessity in constitutional complaint proceedings
1 BvR 758/21
Admissibility of constitutional complaint regarding appointment of supplementary guardian for minor’s inheritance rejection and protection of minor’s property rights

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 93d Abs 1 S 3 BVerfGG

Procedural basis for dismissing the constitutional complaint without 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

Nichtannahme einer Verfassungsbeschwerde ohne Begründung (§ 93d Abs 1 S 3 BVerfGG) - Ablehnung der Zulassung eines Beistandes (§ 22 Abs 1 S 4 BVerfGG) mangels Darlegung der objektiven Sachdienlichkeit und subjektiven Notwendigkeit

[TENOR]

Der Antrag auf Zulassung von Frau W. als Beistand wird abgelehnt.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

Damit erledigt sich der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung.

[GRUENDE]

Dem ausdrücklichen Antrag auf Zulassung als Beistand nach § 22 Abs. 1 Satz 4 BVerfGG ist nicht zu entsprechen. Eine Zulassung nach § 22 Abs. 1 Satz 4 BVerfGG, die in das pflichtgemäße Ermessen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts gestellt ist, kommt nur in Betracht, wenn sie objektiv sachdienlich und subjektiv notwendig ist (vgl. BVerfGE 8, 92 ; 68, 360 ; BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 17. Juli 2015 - 2 BvR 1245/15 -, juris, Rn. 2; Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 14. Juni 2017 - 2 BvR 800/17 -, juris, Rn. 1). Es ist jedoch nicht dargetan, warum es der Beschwerdeführerin unzumutbar wäre, sich durch einen Rechtsanwalt oder einen Lehrer des Rechts an einer deutschen Hochschule vertreten zu lassen.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.