Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvQ 82/19 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2019:qk20191127.1bvq008219 Generato dall'IA

Interim relief denial where pending constitutional complaint exhibits obvious substantive reasoning deficiencies

Numero d'incarto 1 BvQ 82/19
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The German Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's request for an interim injunction, leaving the challenged status quo in force. The dispute concerned a request for immediate relief pending the filing of a constitutional complaint, which the Court rejected due to obvious deficiencies in the substantive justification of the complaint as it would be raised in the main proceedings. Relying on Section 32(1) of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, the Court held that interim relief is unavailable when the underlying constitutional complaint is inadmissible or manifestly unfounded, determining here that the complaint failed to meet the mandatory requirements for substantive reasoning under Sections 23(1) sentence 2 and 92 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG, § 92 BVerfGG; Interim relief denial where pending constitutional complaint exhibits obvious substantive reasoning deficiencies: The dispute concerned a request for immediate relief pending the filing of a constitutional complaint, which the Court rejected due to obvious deficiencies in the substantive justification of the complaint as it would be raised in the main proceedings. Relying on Section 32(1) of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, the Court held that interim relief is unavailable when the underlying constitutional complaint is inadmissible or manifestly unfounded, determining here that the complaint failed to meet the mandatory requirements for substantive reasoning under Sections 23(1) sentence 2 and 92 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
censura costituzionale procedimento sommario fondatezza materiale procedura pendente censura di violazione costituzionale eccezioni processuali

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG
Cited in the dispositive as the legal basis for rejecting the application for interim relief.
§ 92 BVerfGG
1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG) genügen würde.
Generato dall'IA
1 BvQ 61/19
Interim relief denied where pending constitutional complaint lacks exhausted remedies and substantive reasoning
2 BvQ 31/17
Denial of interim relief where underlying constitutional complaint is inadmissible due to unexhausted ordinary judicial remedies
1 BvQ 66/17
Denial of interim relief due to manifest lack of substantiation of constitutional complaint
2 BvR 87/17
Denial of interim relief in constitutional complaint due to insufficient substantiation of fundamental rights violations and failure to engage with the challenged judgment
2 BvQ 39/16
Insufficient substantiation of isolated interim injunction application and failure to demonstrate admissibility of main constitutional complaint

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG

Cited in the dispositive as the legal basis for rejecting the application for interim relief.

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 isoliert beantragten eA bei offensichtlichen Begründungsmängeln der in der Hauptsache zu erhebenden Verfassungsbeschwerde

[TENOR]

Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung wird abgelehnt.

[GRUENDE]

Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung war abzulehnen.

Nach § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG kann das Bundesverfassungsgericht im Streitfall einen Zustand durch eine einstweilige Anordnung vorläufig regeln, wenn dies zur Abwehr schwerer Nachteile, zur Verhinderung drohender Gewalt oder aus einem anderen wichtigen Grund zum gemeinen Wohl dringend geboten ist.

Bei der Prüfung, ob die Voraussetzungen des § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG vorliegen, sind die Erfolgsaussichten der von dem Antragsteller in der Hauptsache zu erhebenden Verfassungsbeschwerde insoweit relevant, als dem Eilrechtsschutzbegehren nach § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG nicht entsprochen werden kann, wenn diese Verfassungsbeschwerde unzulässig oder offensichtlich unbegründet wäre. Maßgebend für die Beurteilung ist der Verfahrensstand im Zeitpunkt der Entscheidung (vgl. BVerfG, Beschluss der 1. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 24. Februar 2016 - 1 BvQ 8/16 - juris, Rn. 3). Eine noch zu erhebende Verfassungsbeschwerde wäre auf der Grundlage des bisherigen Vorbringens des Antragstellers unzulässig, weil sie offensichtlich nicht den Begründungsanforderungen (vgl. § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG) genügen würde.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.