Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 1163/21 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2021:rk20210809.1bvr116321 Generato dall'IA

Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint in social law and denial of legal aid for non-lawyer representative due to lack of demonstrated necessity

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 1163/21
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 as inadmissible and rejected the implicit application for the admission of a legal representative. The dispute concerned a social law matter where the complainant failed to substantiate the necessity of a non-lawyer representative or explain why representation by a qualified professional under § 22(1) sentence 1 BVerfGG was unreasonable. The court held that the admissibility requirements under § 93a(2) BVerfGG were not met, rendering the complaint manifestly inadmissible, and dispensed with further reasoning pursuant to § 93d(1) sentence 3 BVerfGG; consequently, the complainant did not prevail and the order is final and unappealable.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 22 Abs. 1 Satz 4 BVerfGG, § 22 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG, § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint in social law and denial of legal aid for non-lawyer representative due to lack of demonstrated necessity: The dispute concerned a social law matter where the complainant failed to substantiate the necessity of a non-lawyer representative or explain why representation by a qualified professional under § 22(1) sentence 1 BVerfGG was unreasonable. The court held that the admissibility requirements under § 93a(2) BVerfGG were not met, rendering the complaint manifestly inadmissible, and dispensed with further reasoning pursuant to § 93d(1) sentence 3 BVerfGG; consequently, the complainant did not prevail and the order is final and unappealable.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
requisito costituzionale rappresentanza legale oggetto della lite gratuito patrocinio eccezione di incostituzionalità godimento dei diritti civili

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 22 Abs. 1 Satz 4 BVerfGG
Cited in the first order as the legal basis for rejecting the application for the admission of a representative.
§ 22 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG
Hier ist nicht dargelegt, warum es dem Beschwerdeführer unzumutbar wäre, sich durch eine der in § 22 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG genannten Personen vertreten zu lassen.
§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG
Cited in the second order as the primary basis for not accepting the constitutional complaint for decision due to lack of admissibility.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Cited in the third order to justify the omission of a further reasoning for the decision.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 8, 92
hierzu BVerfGE 8, 92 ; 68, 360 ; BVerfG, Beschluss der 2.
1 BvR 679/21
Proportionality of coercive detention for public broadcasting fee enforcement and the requirement to exhaust civil procedural remedies under § 765a ZPO
1 BvR 296/20
Dem Antrag auf Zulassung als Beistand nach § 22 Abs.
1 BvR 690/20
Refusal of constitutional complaint and denial of associate counsel admission for lack of demonstrated necessity under § 22 BVerfGG
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 2077/23
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint against interim social law rulings due to failure to exhaust remedies and lack of independent constitutional complaint
2 BvR 327/20
Rejection of constitutional complaint as evidently inadmissible due to insufficient legal reasoning
2 BvR 326/20
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint due to lack of reasoned argument and denial of lawyer appointment for lack of objective necessity
1 BvR 781/17
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint due to lack of qualified representation under § 22 BVerfGG
1 BvR 599/22
Constitutional complaint rejected for failure to exhaust legal remedies and insufficient substantiation; denial of non-lawyer legal representative for lack of necessity and utility

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 22 Abs. 1 Satz 4 BVerfGG

Cited in the first order as the legal basis for rejecting the application for the admission of a representative.

§ 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Cited in the second order as the primary basis for not accepting the constitutional complaint for decision due to lack of admissibility.

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Cited in the third order to justify the omission of a further reasoning for 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: Verfassungsbeschwerde in einer sozialrechtlichen Sache offensichtlich unzulässig - Ablehnung eines (konkludenten) Antrags auf Beistandszulassung mangels Darlegung der Erforderlichkeit

[TENOR]

Der Antrag auf Zulassung von L... als Beistand wird abgelehnt.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Dem (konkludenten) Antrag auf Zulassung eines Beistands nach § 22 Abs. 1 Satz 4 BVerfGG ist nicht zu entsprechen. Eine Zulassung nach § 22 Abs. 1 Satz 4 BVerfGG, die in das pflichtgemäße Ermessen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts gestellt ist, kommt nur in Betracht, wenn sie objektiv sachdienlich oder subjektiv erforderlich ist (vgl. hierzu BVerfGE 8, 92 ; 68, 360 ; BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 19. April 2021 - 1 BvR 679/21 -, Rn. 7; Beschluss der 1. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 14. Oktober 2020 - 1 BvR 296/20 -, Rn. 1; Beschluss der 3. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 10. Mai 2021 - 1 BvR 690/20 -, juris, Rn. 1). Hier ist nicht dargelegt, warum es dem Beschwerdeführer unzumutbar wäre, sich durch eine der in § 22 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG genannten Personen vertreten zu lassen.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist nicht zur Entscheidung anzunehmen, weil die Annahmevoraussetzungen nach § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG nicht erfüllt sind. Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist offensichtlich unzulässig.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.