Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
1 BvR 2837/16 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2018:rk20180713.1bvr283716 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional complaint rejected for lacking fundamental rights violation, centered on factual determination and burden of proof

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 2837/16
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Inammissibile (Inadmissible)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany dismissed the constitutional complaint, rendering the decision final and unappealable, thereby allowing the lower court's ruling to stand. The dispute involved a challenge to a decision that the petitioner argued violated fundamental rights or rights equivalent to fundamental rights, but the court found no decisive constitutional violation. The rejection was based on the ground that the complaint lacked general constitutional significance under § 93a No. 2 lit. a of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG) and that a review was not indicated to enforce the petitioner's rights under § 90 No. 1 BVerfGG, as the arguments were determined to be primarily factual and related to evidence distribution and procedural law rather than constitutional matters. Consequently, the court dispensed with providing a detailed written reasoning in accordance with § 93d No. 1 Sentence 3 BVerfGG.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 90 Abs. 1 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Constitutional complaint rejected for lacking fundamental rights violation, centered on factual determination and burden of proof: The dispute involved a challenge to a decision that the petitioner argued violated fundamental rights or rights equivalent to fundamental rights, but the court found no decisive constitutional violation. The rejection was based on the ground that the complaint lacked general constitutional significance under § 93a No. 2 lit. a of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG) and that a review was not indicated to enforce the petitioner's rights under § 90 No. 1 BVerfGG, as the arguments were determined to be primarily factual and related to evidence distribution and procedural law rather than constitutional matters. Consequently, the court dispensed with providing a detailed written reasoning in accordance with § 93d No. 1 Sentence 3 BVerfGG.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
diritti fondamentali motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali violazione dei diritti procedurali oggetto della lite onere della prova allegazione motivata

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Generato dall'IA

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Procedural rule applied to justify the dispensation from a detailed written reasoning in the order.

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: Verletzung von Grundrechten oder grundrechtsgleichen Rechten nicht erkennbar

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Der Verfassungsbeschwerde kommt keine grundsätzliche verfassungsrechtliche Bedeutung zu (§ 93a Abs. 2 Buchst. a BVerfGG); ihre Annahme ist auch nicht zur Durchsetzung der in § 90 Abs. 1 BVerfGG genannten Rechte des Beschwerdeführers angezeigt. Eine entscheidungserhebliche Verletzung dieser Rechte ist nicht erkennbar. Das gesamte ausführliche Beschwerdevorbringen bewegt sich im Kern auf der Ebene der Tatsachenermittlung und Beweislastverteilung und des einfachen, insbesondere des Verfahrensrechts. Für ein Eingreifen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts besteht kein Anlass.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.