Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 2244/20 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2023:rk20230109.2bvr224420 Generato dall'IA

Admission of non-attorney representative in constitutional complaint; rejection for lack of subjective necessity

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 2244/20
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 decision and rejected the applicant's request for the admission of a representative, rendering the ruling final and unchallengeable. The dispute concerned a procedural application for the admission of a non-attorney representative in a constitutional complaint, challenging the lower tribunals' handling of the underlying matter. Relying on § 22(1) sentence 4 BVerfGG, the court determined that the admission of a representative is at its discretion and requires both objective usefulness and subjective necessity; the applicant failed to demonstrate that representation by a qualified lawyer or a law professor was unreasonable. Consequently, pursuant to § 93d(1) sentence 3 BVerfGG, the court dispensed with further reasoning on the merits of the constitutional complaint.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 22 Abs. 1 Satz 4 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Admission of non-attorney representative in constitutional complaint; rejection for lack of subjective necessity: The dispute concerned a procedural application for the admission of a non-attorney representative in a constitutional complaint, challenging the lower tribunals' handling of the underlying matter. Relying on § 22(1) sentence 4 BVerfGG, the court determined that the admission of a representative is at its discretion and requires both objective usefulness and subjective necessity; the applicant failed to demonstrate that representation by a qualified lawyer or a law professor was unreasonable. Consequently, pursuant to § 93d(1) sentence 3 BVerfGG, the court dispensed with further reasoning on the merits of the constitutional complaint.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali diritto soggettivo decisioni incidentali oggetto della lite divieto di rappresentanza dell'avvocato giurisdizione costituzionale

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
Procedural basis cited in the dispositive to dispense with further reasoning for the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 8, 92
BVerfGE 8, 92 ; 68, 360 ; BVerfG, Beschluss der 2.
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 760/23
Admission of non-lawyer as representative in constitutional proceedings: subjective necessity requirement under § 22 BVerfGG
1 BvR 690/20
Refusal of constitutional complaint and denial of associate counsel admission for lack of demonstrated necessity under § 22 BVerfGG
1 BvR 2385/17
Denial of representative admission for failure to prove objective usefulness and subjective necessity in constitutional complaint proceedings
1 BvR 497/26
Constitutional complaint rejected for lack of substantiation; refusal of admission of non-lawyer assistant as procedural representative
1 BvR 1580/25
Admission of legal representative in constitutional complaint: insufficient demonstration of legal qualification

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Procedural basis cited in the dispositive to dispense with further reasoning for the non-acceptance 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 (…) als Beistand wird abgelehnt.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[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 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.