Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 474/20 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2020:rk20200319.2bvr047420 Generato dall'IA

Denial of interim relief to cancel criminal hearing due to pandemic risk: violation of subsidiarity and insufficient legal reasoning

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 474/20
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 Federal Constitutional Court denied the petitioner’s application for a temporary injunction, ruling that the applicant failed to satisfy the requirement of subsidiarity and did not adequately rebut the reasoning of the challenged decision. The dispute concerned a criminal defendant’s attempt to halt a main hearing scheduled for March 20, 2020, due to the risk of contracting a novel coronavirus infection. The Court held that the petitioner was required to first pursue available regular legal remedies, specifically filing a complaint against the lower court’s refusal to cancel the hearing, before invoking constitutional emergency protection. The decision emphasizes the doctrine of subsidiarity in constitutional complaints and the obligation to provide substantive argumentative engagement with the lower court’s grounds, leaving the scheduled hearing in force as no constitutional violation was established.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 213 StPO; Denial of interim relief to cancel criminal hearing due to pandemic risk: violation of subsidiarity and insufficient legal reasoning: The dispute concerned a criminal defendant’s attempt to halt a main hearing scheduled for March 20, 2020, due to the risk of contracting a novel coronavirus infection. The Court held that the petitioner was required to first pursue available regular legal remedies, specifically filing a complaint against the lower court’s refusal to cancel the hearing, before invoking constitutional emergency protection. The decision emphasizes the doctrine of subsidiarity in constitutional complaints and the obligation to provide substantive argumentative engagement with the lower court’s grounds, leaving the scheduled hearing in force as no constitutional violation was established.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
procedimento sommario requisito costituzionale tutela legale denuncia penale principio di sussidiarietà rinvio del dibattimento

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 213 StPO
Cited in the dispositive to support the finding that the applicant could have pursued the required subsidiary procedural remedy of a complaint against the refusal to cancel the hearing.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 105, 252
BVerfGE 105, 252 ; BVerfGK 14, 402 ).
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 483/20
Interim relief against trial dates: health risk from virus infection vs. constitutional requirements for substantive review and procedural subsidiarity
2 BvR 571/20
Constitutional complaint against denial of trial date cancellation due to pandemic health risks: failure to substantively challenge implemented protective measures
VIII B 108/20
Hearing postponement for pandemic-related access restrictions: Sufficiency of illness symptoms as a material ground for rescheduling
IX B 16/21
Denial of hearing postponement for unvaccinated party with pre-existing conditions during pandemic not arbitrary under § 227 ZPO

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 213 StPO

Cited in the dispositive to support the finding that the applicant could have pursued the required subsidiary procedural remedy of a complaint against the refusal to cancel the hearing.

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 eA zur Aufhebung eines Hauptverhandlungstermins wegen der Gefahr einer Corona-Infektion - Tenorbegründung: Subsidiarität gegenüber fachgerichtlichem Rechtsschutz sowie unzureichende Antragsbegründung

[TENOR]

1. Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung wird abgelehnt, da der - auch für den vorgelagerten verfassungsrechtlichen Eilrechtsschutz geltende (vgl. BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 30. Dezember 2002 - 2 BvQ 59/02, Rn. 1; BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer der Zweiten Senats vom 30. Juli 2014 - 2 BvQ 26/14, Rn. 2) - Grundsatz der Subsidiarität der Verfassungsbeschwerde nicht gewahrt ist. Der Beschwerdeführer hat nicht dargelegt, dass es ihm nicht zumutbar gewesen wäre, zunächst im Wege der Beschwerde gegen die Ablehnung der von ihm wegen der Gefahr einer Corona-Infektion begehrten Aufhebung des Hauptverhandlungstermins vom 20. März 2020 vorzugehen (vgl. Beschluss des Oberlandesgerichts München vom 25. April 1994 - 2 Ws 550/94 -, NStZ 1994, 451; Schmitt in: Meyer-Goßner/Schmitt, StPO, 62. Aufl. 2019, § 213 Rn. 8). Im Übrigen lässt der Beschwerdeführer eine argumentative Auseinandersetzung mit den Gründen der angegriffenen Entscheidung vermissen (vgl. BVerfGE 105, 252 ; BVerfGK 14, 402 ).

[GRUENDE]

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.