Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 1735/17 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2021:rk20210628.1bvr173517 Generato dall'IA

Subsidiarity bar on constitutional challenge to cultural goods protection statutes due to need for specialized judicial interpretation

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 1735/17
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 accept the constitutional complaint for a decision, meaning the challenged provisions of the law on the protection of cultural goods remain in force and unaltered by this ruling. The dispute involved a complaint against specific statutory provisions for infringing fundamental rights, where the complainant argued from the perspective of a coin dealer regarding the application of these norms. The Court held the complaint inadmissible primarily based on the doctrine of subsidiarity, finding that the challenged legal concepts required interpretation and application by specialized courts first, and that the complainant’s specific arguments did not justify bypassing the available specialized legal remedies.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Subsidiarity bar on constitutional challenge to cultural goods protection statutes due to need for specialized judicial interpretation: The dispute involved a complaint against specific statutory provisions for infringing fundamental rights, where the complainant argued from the perspective of a coin dealer regarding the application of these norms. The Court held the complaint inadmissible primarily based on the doctrine of subsidiarity, finding that the challenged legal concepts required interpretation and application by specialized courts first, and that the complainant’s specific arguments did not justify bypassing the available specialized legal remedies.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
diritti costituzionali specifici diritto processuale diritto legale tutela legale ricorso costituzionale all'estero beni culturali

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural basis cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a further detailed reasoning for the non-acceptance of the complaint.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 1727/17
Constitutional challenge to cultural property protection law: admissibility barriers of subsidiarity and lack of immediate personal affection
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 1727/17, 1 BvR 1728/17, 1 BvR 1729/17, 1 BvR 1746/17
Constitutional challenge to cultural property protection law: admissibility barriers of subsidiarity and lack of immediate personal affection
1 BvR 525/16
Insufficient substantiation of constitutional complaint challenging partial denial of legal aid for copyright appeal
1 BvQ 66/20
Subsidiarity requirement for constitutional injunctions in assembly permit disputes
1 BvR 2137/23
Constitutional complaint in social law rejected for lack of sufficient substantiation and failure to satisfy the subsidiarity principle
1 BvR 963/16
Constitutional complaint rejected for failure to substantiate fundamental rights violation

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Procedural basis cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a further detailed reasoning for 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: Wegen Subsidiarität unzulässige Rechtssatzverfassungsbeschwerde gegen einzelne Vorschriften des Gesetzes zum Schutz von Kulturgut (Kulturgutschutzgesetz; juris: KGSG) - Hinweis auf die in der Entscheidung vom 28.06.2021, 1 BvR 1727/17 ua genannten Gründe

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde bleibt aus den in 1 BvR 1727/17 u.a. genannten Gründen ohne Erfolg. Die angegriffenen Regelungen enthalten auslegungsbedürftige und -fähige Rechtsbegriffe, zu deren Auslegung und Anwendung zunächst die Fachgerichte berufen sind. Auch die Beschwerdeführerin hat daher nach dem Grundsatz der Subsidiarität vorrangig fachgerichtlichen Rechtsschutz zu suchen. Ihr spezifisches Beschwerdevorbringen aus der Sicht als Münzhändlerin rechtfertigt keine andere Entscheidung.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.