Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 890/20 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2020:rk20200527.1bvr089020 Generato dall'IA

Right to be heard violated by judgment issued before hearing deadline expired, cured by subsequent consideration of timely submission

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 890/20
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 declined to take up the constitutional complaint, leaving the lower civil court judgment in force. The dispute concerned a procedural violation where a civil court rendered a judgment before the expiration of a statutory deadline for the complainant's response, thereby breaching the right to be heard. The Court acknowledged that this initial ruling violated the right to legal hearing but determined that the violation was successfully cured when the lower court subsequently considered the timely filed submission within the scope of the appellate hearing complaint procedure. The decisive legal basis is Article 103 (1) of the Basic Law regarding the right to be heard, applied in conjunction with the doctrine of curative effect in the hearing complaint process.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art 103 Abs 1 GG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Right to be heard violated by judgment issued before hearing deadline expired, cured by subsequent consideration of timely submission: The dispute concerned a procedural violation where a civil court rendered a judgment before the expiration of a statutory deadline for the complainant's response, thereby breaching the right to be heard. The Court acknowledged that this initial ruling violated the right to legal hearing but determined that the violation was successfully cured when the lower court subsequently considered the timely filed submission within the scope of the appellate hearing complaint procedure. The decisive legal basis is Article 103 (1) of the Basic Law regarding the right to be heard, applied in conjunction with the doctrine of curative effect in the hearing complaint process.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
diritto di essere sentito violazione dei diritti procedurali effetti della sentenza diritto legale articolo del CPC dottrina giuridica

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Art 103 Abs 1 GG
Nichtannahmebeschluss: Verletzung des Anspruchs auf rechtliches Gehör (Art 103 Abs 1 GG) durch zivilprozessuale Entscheidung vor Ablauf einer Stellungnahmefrist - allerdings Heilung des Gehörsverstoßes im fachgerichtlichen Anhörungsrügeverfahren
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a further reasoning on the decision.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 49, 212
BVerfGE 49, 212 ; 70, 215 ; BVerfG, Beschluss der 2.
1 BvR 859/13
Violation of right to be heard by pre-deadline ruling and denial of appeal despite uniform superior case law on consumer loan processing fees as standard terms
BVerfGE 73, 322
BVerfGE 73, 322 ; BVerfG, Beschluss der 2.
2 BvR 1082/18
Healing of hearing violation via objection procedure and mislabeling of judicial role
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 549/17
Constitutional complaint against civil judgment rendered before expiration of court-set response deadline: failure to establish that violation of right to be heard materially affected outcome
2 BvR 1379/23
Violation of right to be heard through failure to consider timely request for oral hearing in summary civil proceedings
2 BvR 3073/14
Right to be hearing violated by failing to disclose and allow response to late-filed opposing party submission containing new factual and legal arguments
2 BvR 977/16
Constitutional right to oral hearing under Art. 103 GG violated by written judgment without prior notice despite request to avoid decision on the file
2 BvR 745/14
Right to be heard violated by decision based on untimely filed extension request in state fallback legal acquisition proceedings

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a further reasoning on the decision.

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 des Anspruchs auf rechtliches Gehör (Art 103 Abs 1 GG) durch zivilprozessuale Entscheidung vor Ablauf einer Stellungnahmefrist - allerdings Heilung des Gehörsverstoßes im fachgerichtlichen Anhörungsrügeverfahren

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Zwar verletzt das Urteil vom 20. Februar 2020 die Beschwerdeführerin in ihrem Anspruch auf rechtliches Gehör (Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG), weil es zu einer Zeit erlassen wurde, zu der die gesetzte Frist noch nicht nachweisbar abgelaufen war (vgl. BVerfGE 49, 212 ; 70, 215 ; BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 19. Dezember 2013 - 1 BvR 859/13 -, Rn. 9, 11; jeweils m.w.N.). Diese Gehörsverletzung wurde aber im Rahmen des Anhörungsrügeverfahrens geheilt (vgl. BVerfGE 73, 322 ; BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 18. Juli 2019 - 2 BvR 1082/18 -, Rn. 17; jeweils m.w.N.), weil das Amtsgericht dabei den zunächst übergangenen, fristgerecht eingegangenen Schriftsatz vom 20. Februar 2020 im Rahmen einer Hilfsbegründung berücksichtigt hat.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.