Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvQ 101/18 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2018:qk20181115.2bvq010118 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional interim relief denied for failure to substantiate the principle of subsidiarity of constitutional complaints

Numero d'incarto 2 BvQ 101/18
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 German Federal Constitutional Court dismissed an application for interim relief, ruling that the applicant failed to substantiate the prerequisites for such an order. The dispute concerned a request for temporary constitutional protection to suspend proceedings or actions pending the outcome of a constitutional complaint. The court held that the application was inadmissible due to a lack of sufficient argumentation regarding the exhaustion of legal remedies and compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, which applies to preliminary proceedings under § 90(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGG). The decision emphasized that interim constitutional protection is not intended to pre-empt or substitute ordinary jurisdictional proceedings; consequently, the status quo remained unchanged, and the applicant's request was denied.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG, § 90 Abs. 2 BVerfGG; Constitutional interim relief denied for failure to substantiate the principle of subsidiarity of constitutional complaints: The dispute concerned a request for temporary constitutional protection to suspend proceedings or actions pending the outcome of a constitutional complaint. The court held that the application was inadmissible due to a lack of sufficient argumentation regarding the exhaustion of legal remedies and compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, which applies to preliminary proceedings under § 90(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGG). The decision emphasized that interim constitutional protection is not intended to pre-empt or substitute ordinary jurisdictional proceedings; consequently, the status quo remained unchanged, and the applicant's request was denied.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
procedimento sommario principio costituzionale motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali decisione pregiudiziale procedura pendente principio di sussidiarietà

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG
Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung nach § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG wird abgelehnt, weil die Voraussetzungen für den Erlass nicht substantiiert dargelegt sind.
§ 90 Abs. 2 BVerfGG
§ 90 Abs. 2 BVerfGG), der auch im vorgelagerten verfassungsgerichtlichen Eilrechtsschutzverfahren gilt (vgl.
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 1390/17
Interim constitutional relief rejected for lack of subsidiarity and failure to demonstrate imminent severe disadvantage in pending civil proceedings
1 BvQ 66/17
Denial of interim relief due to manifest lack of substantiation of constitutional complaint
2 BvQ 91/19
Constitutional interim relief denied due to failure to exhaust subsidiary administrative court urgency procedures for hearing complaints
1 BvQ 13/17
Constitutional interim relief denied for failure to exhaust specialized social court remedies under subsidiarity doctrine
1 BvR 340/19
Subsidiarity of constitutional interim relief pending statutory hearing objection proceedings under § 44 FamFG

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

Ablehnung des Erlasses einer einstweiligen Anordnung mit Tenorbegründung: Unzulässigkeit mangels hinreichender Substantiierung

[TENOR]

Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung nach § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG wird abgelehnt, weil die Voraussetzungen für den Erlass nicht substantiiert dargelegt sind. Dies gilt insbesondere für die Einhaltung des Grundsatzes der Subsidiarität der Verfassungsbeschwerde (vgl. § 90 Abs. 2 BVerfGG), der auch im vorgelagerten verfassungsgerichtlichen Eilrechtsschutzverfahren gilt (vgl. BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 10. August 2016 - 2 BvQ 36/16 -, juris, Rn. 3 m.w.N.). Das Verfahren des einstweiligen Rechtsschutzes vor dem Bundesverfassungsgericht ist nicht darauf angelegt, das fachgerichtliche Verfahren vorwegzunehmen oder gar zu ersetzen (vgl. BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 10. August 2016 - 2 BvQ 36/16 -, juris, Rn. 5; Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 24. März 2014 - 1 BvQ 9/14 -, juris, Rn. 3).

[GRUENDE]

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.