Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvQ 89/20 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2020:qk20201117.2bvq008920 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional complaint against forced eviction: failure to substantiate admissibility and non-obvious unfoundedness under § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG

Numero d'incarto 2 BvQ 89/20
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 (BVerfG) rejected an application for an interim injunction, leaving the decisions of the lower courts in force. The case involved a request for an emergency order to prevent a forced eviction, where the applicants had challenged rulings from the local court and the district court regarding the enforcement of a title. The Court deemed the application inadmissible under § 32 Abs. 1 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG) because the applicants failed to provide a sufficiently substantiated argument demonstrating that a constitutional complaint would be admissible and not obviously unfounded, thus requiring a detailed presentation of the specific constitutional rights allegedly violated and why the ordinary legal remedies were exhausted or ineffective.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG; Constitutional complaint against forced eviction: failure to substantiate admissibility and non-obvious unfoundedness under § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG: The case involved a request for an emergency order to prevent a forced eviction, where the applicants had challenged rulings from the local court and the district court regarding the enforcement of a title. The Court deemed the application inadmissible under § 32 Abs. 1 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG) because the applicants failed to provide a sufficiently substantiated argument demonstrating that a constitutional complaint would be admissible and not obviously unfounded, thus requiring a detailed presentation of the specific constitutional rights allegedly violated and why the ordinary legal remedies were exhausted or ineffective.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
esecuzione dello sfratto motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali esecuzione della sentenza pretesa abusiva del locatore ordinanza di necessità incostituzionale inesigibilità dell'esecuzione dell'allontanamento

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG
Provision used to declare the application for an interim injunction inadmissible due to insufficient substantiation of the requirements.
Generato dall'IA
2 BvQ 113/21
Forced eviction: Sufficiency of argumentation on admissibility and merit of subsequent constitutional complaint for interim relief
2 BvR 46/20
Constitutional complaint against civil enforcement measures: insufficient factual and legal substantiation of alleged fundamental rights violation
1 BvR 2024/24
Constitutional admissibility of challenging eviction for non-exhaustion of hearing objection despite alleged Article 2(2) and Article 13(1) Grundgesetz violations
2 BvR 1341/16
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint challenging eviction due to insufficient substantiation of suicidal risk against medical evidence
1 BvR 2335/14
Tenant hardship defeating property rights claim in self-occupation eviction

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG

Provision used to declare the application for an interim injunction inadmissible due to insufficient substantiation of the requirements.

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 eines Eilantrags in einer Zwangsräumungssache - Erfolgsaussichten einer Verfassungsbeschwerde in der Hauptsache nicht hinreichend dargelegt

[TENOR]

Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung wird abgelehnt.

[GRUENDE]

Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung ist unzulässig. Es fehlt an einem hinreichend substantiierten Vortrag zu den Voraussetzungen von § 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG, da die Antragsteller nicht substantiiert dargelegt haben, dass eine Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen die Beschlüsse des Amtsgerichts L… vom 20. August 2020 - 35 M M 768/20 - und des Landgerichts B… vom 6. Oktober 2020 - 51 T 313/20 - und vom 9. November 2020 - 51 T 313/20 - zulässig und nicht offensichtlich unbegründet wäre (vgl. BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 20. August 2015 - 1 BvQ 28/15 -, Rn. 2; Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 30. September 2015 - 2 BvQ 29/15 -, Rn. 2; Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 14. Dezember 2015 - 2 BvQ 45/15 -; Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 8. Februar 2016 - 2 BvQ 9/16 -).

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.