Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 1462/21 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2022:rk20220811.1bvr146221 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional complaint inadmissible for missing filing deadline; parallel state constitutional complaint does not suspend the period

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 1462/21
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 rejected the applicant's constitutional complaint, denying the admission for decision, application for legal aid, and application for reinstatement to previous status, thereby leaving the lower court judgment in force. The dispute concerned the timeliness of a constitutional complaint, where the applicant argued that the filing of a parallel state-level constitutional complaint suspended the one-month deadline for federal review, but the Court found the complaint inadmissible as it was filed late and the applicant failed to credibly demonstrate grounds for reinstatement. The decisive legal basis included § 93 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG regarding the statutory filing deadline, which the Court held is not suspended by the exhaustion of remedies before state constitutional courts, and § 93 Abs. 2 BVerfGG, under which the applicant's failure to seek professional legal advice when in doubt about the deadline precluded a claim of undue burden justifying reinstatement.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93 Abs 1 BVerfGG, § 93 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG, § 93 Abs. 2 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Constitutional complaint inadmissible for missing filing deadline; parallel state constitutional complaint does not suspend the period: The dispute concerned the timeliness of a constitutional complaint, where the applicant argued that the filing of a parallel state-level constitutional complaint suspended the one-month deadline for federal review, but the Court found the complaint inadmissible as it was filed late and the applicant failed to credibly demonstrate grounds for reinstatement. The decisive legal basis included § 93 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG regarding the statutory filing deadline, which the Court held is not suspended by the exhaustion of remedies before state constitutional courts, and § 93 Abs. 2 BVerfGG, under which the applicant's failure to seek professional legal advice when in doubt about the deadline precluded a claim of undue burden justifying reinstatement.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
atto tardivo motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali termine legale insinuazione del credito termine di controllo status giuridico anteriore

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93 Abs 1 BVerfGG
Cited in the first dispositive order as the main ground for rejecting the constitutional complaint due to its inadmissibility resulting from the failure to meet the filing deadline.
§ 93 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG
Sie ist unzulässig, denn sie ist nicht innerhalb der gesetzlichen Frist erhoben worden (§ 93 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG) und Gründe für eine Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand (§ 93 Abs.
§ 93 Abs. 2 BVerfGG
Cited in the first dispositive order to justify the rejection of the application for reinstatement into the previous status.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Cited in the second dispositive order to justify the omission of a further written reasoning for the decision.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 507/21
Non-suspension of federal constitutional complaint deadline by state constitutional review: No procedural tolling or legal path exhaustion
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 3444/14
Constitutional complaint inadmissible for missed filing deadline; reinstatement denied due to lack of unattributable delay
1 BvR 1936/14
Constitutional complaint inadmissible for missing one-month filing deadline and lack of unblamable grounds for reinstatement
2 BvR 2674/10
Constitutional complaint inadmissibility due to violation of statutory filing deadline under § 93 BVerfGG
2 BvR 1004/13
Constitutional complaint inadmissibility: Start of filing deadline upon multiple notifications and failure to substantiate timely filing
2 BvR 171/20
Constitutional complaint inadmissible due to failure to prove timeliness of filing where judgment served to counsel and principal at different times

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 93 Abs. 1 BVerfGG

Cited in the first dispositive order as the main ground for rejecting the constitutional complaint due to its inadmissibility resulting from the failure to meet the filing deadline.

§ 93 Abs. 2 BVerfGG

Cited in the first dispositive order to justify the rejection of the application for reinstatement into the previous status.

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Cited in the second dispositive order to justify the omission of a further written 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

Nichtannahme einer mangels Fristwahrung unzulässigen Verfassungsbeschwerde - Erhebung einer Landesverfassungsbeschwerde hemmt nicht den Lauf der Beschwerdefrist des § 93 Abs 1 BVerfGG

[TENOR]

Der Antrag auf Bewilligung von Prozesskostenhilfe und Beiordnung einer Rechtsanwältin wird abgelehnt, weil die beabsichtigte Rechtsverfolgung keine hinreichende Aussicht auf Erfolg bietet.

Der Antrag auf Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand wird abgelehnt.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist nicht zur Entscheidung anzunehmen. Sie ist unzulässig, denn sie ist nicht innerhalb der gesetzlichen Frist erhoben worden (§ 93 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG) und Gründe für eine Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand (§ 93 Abs. 2 BVerfGG) wurden nicht glaubhaft gemacht. Der Beschwerdeführer kann sich insbesondere nicht darauf berufen, dass er darauf vertraut habe, die Landesverfassungsbeschwerde hemme den Fristablauf. In dem auf der Internetseite des Bundesverfassungsgerichts veröffentlichten Merkblatt zur Einlegung einer Verfassungsbeschwerde wird zur "Erschöpfung des Rechtswegs" erläutert, dass die Erhebung einer Verfassungsbeschwerde zum Landesverfassungsgericht gerade nicht vorausgesetzt wird. Auch wenn dann zur Frist noch Zweifel bestehen sollten, wäre es nicht unzumutbar, dazu fachlichen Rat einzuholen (vgl. zuletzt BVerfG, Beschluss der 3. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 7. Juni 2021 - 1 BvR 507/21 -, Rn. 2). Dies hat der Beschwerdeführer nicht getan.

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.