Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 1180/18 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2018:rk20180601.1bvr118018 Generato dall'IA

Inadmissible constitutional complaint challenging a speaking ban imposed on a non-designated speaker at an assembly for lack of substantiation of fundamental rights violation

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 1180/18
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 dismissed the constitutional complaint without accepting it for decision, rendering the applicant's application for interim relief moot and leaving the challenged prohibition in force. The dispute concerned a public assembly, where the applicant argued that a speaking ban issued to the event organizer violated their freedom of assembly and expression, despite the organizer not designating the applicant as a speaker and accepting the ban during prior coordination talks. The court found the complaint inadmissible because the applicant failed to substantiate a plausible violation of Article 8(1) in conjunction with Article 5(1) Sentence 1 of the Basic Law, as required by the procedural provisions of the Federal Constitutional Court Act.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art 8 Abs 1 GG, § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 92 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BVerfGG, § 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG; Inadmissible constitutional complaint challenging a speaking ban imposed on a non-designated speaker at an assembly for lack of substantiation of fundamental rights violation: The dispute concerned a public assembly, where the applicant argued that a speaking ban issued to the event organizer violated their freedom of assembly and expression, despite the organizer not designating the applicant as a speaker and accepting the ban during prior coordination talks. The court found the complaint inadmissible because the applicant failed to substantiate a plausible violation of Article 8(1) in conjunction with Article 5(1) Sentence 1 of the Basic Law, as required by the procedural provisions of the Federal Constitutional Court Act.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
violazione dei diritti procedurali libertà di riunione motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali esclusione del dibattimento pubblico Stato di diritto libertà di lingua

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Art 8 Abs 1 GG
Nichtannahmebeschluss: Versammlungsrechtliches Redeverbot bzgl einer nicht als Redner benannten Person - Verletzung von Grundrechten (Art 8 Abs 1 GG iVm Art 5 Abs 1 S 1 GG) nicht substantiiert dargelegt
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG
Main ground for the verdict, establishing that the constitutional complaint is not accepted for decision because no grounds for acceptance exist.
§ 92 BVerfGG
Procedural rule applied to declare the complaint inadmissible due to lack of coherent and sufficient reasoning regarding the fundamental rights violation.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural rule allowing the court to omit a further detailed reasoning.
§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BVerfGG
Procedural rule applied to declare the complaint inadmissible due to insufficient substantiation of the alleged fundamental rights violation.
§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG
Procedural rule determining that the application for interim relief becomes moot upon the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 963/16
Constitutional complaint rejected for failure to substantiate fundamental rights violation
2 BvR 923/24
Failure to substantiate alleged fundamental rights violation rendering constitutional complaint inadmissible under BVerfGG § 23(1) and § 92
2 BvR 613/21
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint for failure to substantiate right to be heard and causal impact of simplified procedure error
2 BvR 301/11
Constitutional complaint deemed inadmissible due to failure to exhaust legal remedies via hearing objection (Anhöungsrüge) for alleged violation of right to be heard.
2 BvR 550/15
Constitutional complaint over breach of right to be heard due to non-transmission of opposing party statements, dismissed for lack of procedural subsidiarity.

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Main ground for the verdict, establishing that the constitutional complaint is not accepted for decision because no grounds for acceptance exist.

§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BVerfGG

Procedural rule applied to declare the complaint inadmissible due to insufficient substantiation of the alleged fundamental rights violation.

§ 92 BVerfGG

Procedural rule applied to declare the complaint inadmissible due to lack of coherent and sufficient reasoning regarding the fundamental rights violation.

§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG

Procedural rule determining that the application for interim relief becomes moot upon the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Procedural rule allowing the court to omit a further detailed 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

Nichtannahmebeschluss: Versammlungsrechtliches Redeverbot bzgl einer nicht als Redner benannten Person - Verletzung von Grundrechten (Art 8 Abs 1 GG iVm Art 5 Abs 1 S 1 GG) nicht substantiiert dargelegt

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

Mit der Nichtannahme der Verfassungsbeschwerde wird der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung gegenstandslos (§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG).

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen, da Annahmegründe nach § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG nicht vorliegen. Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist vielmehr unzulässig, weil ihre Begründung die Möglichkeit der Verletzung von Grundrechten oder grundrechtsgleichen Rechten nicht entsprechend den Anforderungen der § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG substantiiert und schlüssig aufzeigt.

Der Beschwerdeführer hat nicht dargetan, dass er sich gegenüber dem an die Veranstalterin der geplanten Versammlung adressierten Rednerverbot auf eine Verletzung von Art. 8 Abs. 1 i.V.m. Art. 5 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GG berufen kann, obwohl die Veranstalterin ihn nicht als Redner benannt und sie das Rednerverbot - soweit ersichtlich - im Rahmen des am 5. Februar 2018 durchgeführten Kooperationsgesprächs akzeptiert hat.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.