Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 2299/20 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2021:rk20210324.1bvr229920 Generato dall'IA

Inadmissibility of judicial recusal motion lacking substantive justification

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 2299/20
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 dismissed the constitutional complaint without further reasoning and rejected the applicant's motion for recusal of judges as manifestly inadmissible, rendering the request for interim injunctive relief moot. The dispute concerned a procedural challenge where the applicant filed a recusal motion that lacked any substantive justification or contained arguments entirely unsuited to establish a suspicion of bias. Relying on § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, the court determined that a recusal motion is manifestly inadmissible if it fails to provide a proper basis for the allegation of partiality, thereby obviating the need for the recused judges to submit a service response or be excluded from the decision-making process.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs 1 S 3 BVerfGG, § 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG; Inadmissibility of judicial recusal motion lacking substantive justification: The dispute concerned a procedural challenge where the applicant filed a recusal motion that lacked any substantive justification or contained arguments entirely unsuited to establish a suspicion of bias. Relying on § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, the court determined that a recusal motion is manifestly inadmissible if it fails to provide a proper basis for the allegation of partiality, thereby obviating the need for the recused judges to submit a service response or be excluded from the decision-making process.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
domanda di ricusazione parzialità del giudice fondatezza materiale motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali azione di separazione restituzione in pristino

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Von einer weiteren Begründung wird nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.
§ 93d Abs 1 S 3 BVerfGG
Basis for waiving a further reasoning for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.
§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG
Procedural rule establishing that the request for interim injunctive relief becomes moot upon the non-acceptance of the complaint.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 30/19
Inadmissibility of recusal motion against judges based on prior involvement in same party’s earlier constitutional complaint
BVerfGE 131, 239
BVerfGE 131, 239 ; 133, 377 ; 142, 1 ).
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 198/17
Inadmissibility of recusal motion against constitutional judges for lack of substantive bias grounds
2 BvR 1000/22
Inadmissibility of judicial recusal motion lacking credible basis for impartiality bias
1 BvR 1519/24
Recusal motion rejected as manifestly inadmissible for lacking factual substantiation of partiality
1 BvR 1526/17
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint and recusal motion due to failure to substantiate bias and lack of acceptance criteria
2 BvR 614/16
Recusal motion deemed plainly inadmissible without judge statements due to insufficient grounds for bias

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 93d Abs 1 S 3 BVerfGG

Basis for waiving a further reasoning for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.

§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG

Procedural rule establishing that the request for interim injunctive relief becomes moot upon the non-acceptance of the 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

Nichtannahmebeschluss ohne weitere Begründung (§ 93d Abs 1 S 3 BVerfGG) - Verwerfung eines offensichtlich unzulässigen Ablehnungsgesuchs

[TENOR]

Das Ablehnungsgesuch des Beschwerdeführers wird als unzulässig verworfen.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

Mit der Nichtannahme der Verfassungsbeschwerde wird der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung gegenstandslos (§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG).

[GRUENDE]

Die Verwerfung des Ablehnungsgesuchs kann mit der Sachentscheidung erfolgen, weil es offensichtlich unzulässig ist (vgl. BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 16. April 2019 - 1 BvR 30/19 -, Rn. 1). Ein Ablehnungsgesuch, das keine Begründung oder lediglich Ausführungen enthält, die zur Begründung der Besorgnis der Befangenheit gänzlich ungeeignet sind, ist offensichtlich unzulässig. Bei offensichtlicher Unzulässigkeit bedarf es keiner dienstlichen Stellungnahme der abgelehnten Richter; diese sind bei der Entscheidung über das offensichtlich unzulässige Ablehnungsgesuch auch nicht ausgeschlossen (vgl. BVerfGE 131, 239 ; 133, 377 ; 142, 1 ).

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.