Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvQ 113/21 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2021:qk20211213.1bvq011321 Generato dall'IA

Sufficiency of evidentiary showing for severe disadvantage in provisional injunction against mandatory testing, vaccination, or recovery in public transport

Numero d'incarto 1 BvQ 113/21
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Constitutional Court rejected the request for a provisional injunction, leaving the challenged legislation in force and leaving the applicant without relief. The case concerned a constitutional law complaint challenging the mandatory 3G rule (vaccinated, recovered, or tested) imposed on passengers in public road, rail, and air transport under Section 28b(5), sentence 1, number 1 of the Infection Protection Act. The court determined that the application failed because the applicant did not sufficiently demonstrate a severe disadvantage within the meaning of Section 32 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, nor did they establish that a subsequent constitutional complaint would not be inadmissible or manifestly unfounded from the outset.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 32 BVerfGG; Sufficiency of evidentiary showing for severe disadvantage in provisional injunction against mandatory testing, vaccination, or recovery in public transport: The case concerned a constitutional law complaint challenging the mandatory 3G rule (vaccinated, recovered, or tested) imposed on passengers in public road, rail, and air transport under Section 28b(5), sentence 1, number 1 of the Infection Protection Act. The court determined that the application failed because the applicant did not sufficiently demonstrate a severe disadvantage within the meaning of Section 32 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, nor did they establish that a subsequent constitutional complaint would not be inadmissible or manifestly unfounded from the outset.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
diritto dei trasporti "Validità provvisoria" procedimento pregiudiziale d'urgenza mancanza di prova Stato di diritto diritto delle obbligazioni

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 32 BVerfGG
Cited in the dispositive as the criterion for the lack of a severe disadvantage, justifying the rejection of the request for a provisional injunction.
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 2604/21
3G public transport rules: constitutional complaint lacking standing and insufficient substantiation
1 BvR 2622/21
Constitutional admissibility of challenge to 3G workplace and transport rules; failure to substantiate interference with professional freedom and proportionality of immunity-based distinction
1 BvQ 61/21
Interim injunction against pandemic lockdown measures: Failure to prove imminent severe disadvantage due to lack of individualized factual substantiation
1 BvR 2649/21
Interim suspension of statutory mandate: proof of vaccination, recovery, or contraindication for healthcare and care staff
2 BvQ 9/16
Constitutional court provisional injunction application rejected due to insufficient substantiation of non-obviousness of main complaint

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 32 BVerfGG

Cited in the dispositive as the criterion for the lack of a severe disadvantage, justifying the rejection of the request for a provisional injunction.

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

Erfolgloser Eilantrag gegen "3G-Pflicht" im öffentlichen Personennah- und -fernverkehr sowie im Luftverkehr (§ 28b Abs 5 S 1 Nr 1 IfSG idF vom 22.11.2021) - unzureichende Antragsbegründung - Tenorbegründung

[TENOR]

Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung wird abgelehnt, weil weder ein schwerer Nachteil im Sinne des § 32 BVerfGG dargelegt ist noch, dass eine zu erhebende Verfassungsbeschwerde nicht von vornherein unzulässig oder offensichtlich unbegründet wäre.

[GRUENDE]

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.