Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvC 33/18 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2020:cs20200729.2bvc003318 Generato dall'IA

Recusal application against judge for bias and electoral review complaint

Numero d'incarto 2 BvC 33/18
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 Federal Constitutional Court dismissed both the application for recusal and the electoral review complaint as inadmissible, ruling in favor of the challenged judicial officer and the electoral authorities. The case concerned a dual challenge: an application for recusal against a specific judge alleging bias, and a subsequent electoral review complaint (Wahlprüfungsbeschwerde). The Court found the recusal application obviously inadmissible because the arguments provided were fundamentally unsuitable to substantiate the suspicion of partiality, a determination supported by a parallel decision in a prior related case; under the applicable procedural law, obviously inadmissible recusal requests require no statement from the challenged judge and do not exclude them from the proceedings. Regarding the electoral review, the Court denied the complaint, citing the reasons already set out in a preliminary written opinion by the reporting judge and exercising its discretion to omit a further substantive justification pursuant to § 24 Sentence 2 of the Law on the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGG).

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 24 Satz 2 BVerfGG; Recusal application against judge for bias and electoral review complaint: The case concerned a dual challenge: an application for recusal against a specific judge alleging bias, and a subsequent electoral review complaint (Wahlprüfungsbeschwerde). The Court found the recusal application obviously inadmissible because the arguments provided were fundamentally unsuitable to substantiate the suspicion of partiality, a determination supported by a parallel decision in a prior related case; under the applicable procedural law, obviously inadmissible recusal requests require no statement from the challenged judge and do not exclude them from the proceedings. Regarding the electoral review, the Court denied the complaint, citing the reasons already set out in a preliminary written opinion by the reporting judge and exercising its discretion to omit a further substantive justification pursuant to § 24 Sentence 2 of the Law on the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGG).

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
parzialità del giudice domanda di ricusazione controllo della procedura diritto elettorale decisione pregiudiziale procedure connesse

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 24 Satz 2 BVerfGG
Procedural rule cited in the dispositive to justify omitting further reasoning on the electoral review complaint.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 11, 1
BVerfGE 11, 1 ; BVerfGK 8, 59 ).
Generato dall'IA
2 BvC 35/18
Election review complaint and judge recusal: admissibility of recusal motion lacking substantive grounds for bias suspicion
2 BvC 25/19
Election review complaint and manifestly inadmissible recusal motion for alleged bias based on prior political office and prior judicial involvement in similar proceedings
2 BvC 55/19
Election Review Dismissal and Recusal Rejection: Insufficiency of Preliminary Judicial Opinions and Political Affiliation as Grounds for Bias
2 BvC 52/14
Inadmissibility of recusal request based on preliminary judicial opinion and party affiliation in constitutional election review
2 BvC 38/18
Electoral review complaint dismissed under § 24 BVerfGG; manifestly inadmissible recusal of judge

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 24 Satz 2 BVerfGG

Procedural rule cited in the dispositive to justify omitting further reasoning on the electoral review complaint.

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

A-limine-Abweisung: Parallelentscheidung

[TENOR]

Das Ablehnungsgesuch gegen den Richter Müller wird als unzulässig verworfen.

Die Wahlprüfungsbeschwerde wird verworfen.

[GRUENDE]

1. Das Ablehnungsgesuch der Beschwerdeführer gegen den Richter Müller ist offensichtlich unzulässig.

a) Ein Ablehnungsgesuch, das lediglich Ausführungen enthält, die zur Begründung der Besorgnis der Befangenheit gänzlich ungeeignet sind, ist offensichtlich unzulässig. Bei offensichtlicher Unzulässigkeit bedarf es keiner dienstlichen Stellungnahme des abgelehnten Richters; dieser ist auch von der Entscheidung über das offensichtlich unzulässige Ablehnungsgesuch nicht ausgeschlossen (vgl. BVerfGE 11, 1 ; BVerfGK 8, 59 ).

b) So liegt der Fall hier. Das Ablehnungsgesuch der Beschwerdeführer ist von vornherein nicht geeignet, um die Besorgnis der Befangenheit des Richters Müller zu begründen. Dies folgt aus der Würdigung des - im Wesentlichen mit dem in diesem Verfahren gestellten Ablehnungsgesuch identischen - Ablehnungsgesuchs in dem Verfahren 2 BvC 11/19 mit Senatsbeschluss vom 19. Mai 2020 (dort Rn. 14 ff.).

2. Der Wahlprüfungsbeschwerde bleibt aus den in dem Schreiben des Berichterstatters vom 28. März 2019 genannten Gründen der Erfolg versagt. Gemäß § 24 Satz 2 BVerfGG wird von einer weiteren Begründung abgesehen.