Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 1019/21 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2021:rk20210901.2bvr101921 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional complaint non-admission without reasoning and denial of auxiliary counsel request

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 1019/21
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 denied the applicant's motion to admit a legal guardian and dismissed the constitutional complaint without further reasoning, rendering the application for a preliminary injunction moot; the applicant did not prevail. The dispute concerned a procedural request for the admission of a non-professional representative in a constitutional complaint proceeding, which was evaluated alongside the underlying constitutional complaint that lacked sufficient disclosure to warrant substantive review. The decisive legal basis included § 22(1) sentence 4 BVerfGG, which requires that the admission of a legal guardian be both objectively useful and subjectively necessary, a threshold not met as the applicant failed to demonstrate the unreasonableness of representation by an attorney or law professor, and § 93d(1) sentence 3 BVerfGG, which permitted the omission of a detailed justification for the dismissal of the main complaint.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 22 Abs. 1 Satz 4 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, § 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG; Constitutional complaint non-admission without reasoning and denial of auxiliary counsel request: The dispute concerned a procedural request for the admission of a non-professional representative in a constitutional complaint proceeding, which was evaluated alongside the underlying constitutional complaint that lacked sufficient disclosure to warrant substantive review. The decisive legal basis included § 22(1) sentence 4 BVerfGG, which requires that the admission of a legal guardian be both objectively useful and subjectively necessary, a threshold not met as the applicant failed to demonstrate the unreasonableness of representation by an attorney or law professor, and § 93d(1) sentence 3 BVerfGG, which permitted the omission of a detailed justification for the dismissal of the main complaint.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali rappresentanza legale fondatezza materiale controllo della procedura facoltà di astenersi dal testimoniare omissione del difensore

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 22 Abs. 1 Satz 4 BVerfGG
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 und subjektiv notwendig ist (vgl.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Von einer weiteren Begründung wird nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.
§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG
Cited in the dispositive to determine that the application for a preliminary injunction became moot upon the non-admission of the constitutional complaint.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 8, 92
BVerfGE 8, 92 ; 68, 360 ; BVerfG, Beschluss der 2.
2 BvR 1245/15
Prison disciplinary measure based on unadjudicated offense; constitutional complaint inadmissible for failure to file hearing objection
2 BvR 800/17
Insufficient substantiation of constitutional complaint against refusal of admission of chosen representative as defense counsel
2 BvR 492/18
Denial of appointment as legal guardian for constitutional complaint for failure to demonstrate subjective necessity and objective usefulness
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 492/18
Denial of appointment as legal guardian for constitutional complaint for failure to demonstrate subjective necessity and objective usefulness
2 BvR 2244/20
Admission of non-attorney representative in constitutional complaint; rejection for lack of subjective necessity
1 BvR 246/26
Denial of ad hoc assistant admission in constitutional complaints for lack of necessity and procedural defects
1 BvR 497/26
Constitutional complaint rejected for lack of substantiation; refusal of admission of non-lawyer assistant as procedural representative
1 BvR 655/26
Admission of legal assistant in constitutional complaint and substantive admissibility of parallel decision review

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG

Cited in the dispositive to determine that the application for a preliminary injunction became moot upon the non-admission of the constitutional 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

Nichtannahme einer Verfassungsbeschwerde ohne weitere Begründung - Ablehnung eines Antrags auf Beistandszulassung

[TENOR]

Der Antrag auf Zulassung von Herrn (…) als Beistand wird abgelehnt.

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]

Dem Antrag auf Zulassung eines Bevollmächtigten - auszulegen als Antrag auf Zulassung eines Beistands - 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 und subjektiv notwendig ist (vgl. BVerfGE 8, 92 ; 68, 360 ; BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 17. Juli 2015 - 2 BvR 1245/15 -, Rn. 2; Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 14. Juni 2017 - 2 BvR 800/17 -, Rn. 1; Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 16. April 2018 - 2 BvR 492/18 -, Rn. 1). Es ist jedoch nicht dargetan, warum es dem Beschwerdeführer unzumutbar wäre, sich durch einen Rechtsanwalt oder einen Lehrer des Rechts an einer deutschen Hochschule vertreten zu lassen.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.