Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
1 BvR 2380/21, 1 BvR 2449/21 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2023:rs20230412.1bvr238021 Generato dall'IA

Judicial recusal for prior client representation and application of quorum rules in Federal Constitutional Court fee determinations

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 2380/21, 1 BvR 2449/21
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Constitutional Court set the subject matter values for attorney fees at €120,000 and €40,000 for two constitutional complaint proceedings, effectively resolving the procedural fee determination issue. The case involved a procedural motion for the establishment of "Gegenstandswert" in constitutional review cases, where the court assessed both the subjective and objective significance of the proceedings and the promotion of legal goals through specific advocacy. The decision was rendered in a reduced panel because a member of the court was recused pursuant to § 18 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 BVerfGG due to prior representation of the complainants, with the court explicitly noting that the procedural quorum rule of § 19 Abs. 4 BVerfGG did not apply analogously. The operative legal basis for the fee calculation relied on the established doctrine found in BVerfGE 79, 365, which mandates considering the relative importance of the constitutional questions and the specific anwaltliche Tätigkeit.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 18 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 BVerfGG, § 19 Abs. 4 BVerfGG; Judicial recusal for prior client representation and application of quorum rules in Federal Constitutional Court fee determinations: The case involved a procedural motion for the establishment of "Gegenstandswert" in constitutional review cases, where the court assessed both the subjective and objective significance of the proceedings and the promotion of legal goals through specific advocacy. The decision was rendered in a reduced panel because a member of the court was recused pursuant to § 18 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 BVerfGG due to prior representation of the complainants, with the court explicitly noting that the procedural quorum rule of § 19 Abs. 4 BVerfGG did not apply analogously. The operative legal basis for the fee calculation relied on the established doctrine found in BVerfGE 79, 365, which mandates considering the relative importance of the constitutional questions and the specific anwaltliche Tätigkeit.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
spese legali domanda di ricusazione sindacato giurisdizionale rappresentanza legale norme di procedura dottrina giuridica

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 79, 365
BVerfGE 79, 365 ) werden die Werte des Gegenstands der anwaltlichen Tätigkeit im Verfassungsbeschwerdeverfahren 1 BvR 2380/21 auf 120.000 Euro (in Worten: einhundertzwanzigtausend Euro) und im Verfahren 1 BvR 2449/21 auf 40.000 Euro (in Worten: vierzigtausend Euro) festgesetzt.
1 BvR 2380/21
Veterinary medicinal products law: constitutionality of veterinary practitioner requirement for administering human homeopathic drugs to animals
1 BvR 2449/21
Veterinary medicinal products law: constitutionality of veterinary practitioner requirement for administering human homeopathic drugs to animals
BVerfGE 140, 115
BVerfGE 140, 115 m.w.N.).
Generato dall'IA

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 18 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 BVerfGG

Cited to exclude a judge from participating in the decision due to prior representation of the complainants.

§ 19 Abs. 4 BVerfGG

Cited to determine that the provisions regarding quorum do not apply analogously to the reduced composition of the court.

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

Gegenstandswertfestsetzung im Verfassungsbeschwerdeverfahren

[TENOR]

Unter Berücksichtigung der subjektiven und objektiven Bedeutung der Verfahren und ihrer Förderung durch die jeweilige anwaltliche Tätigkeit (vgl. BVerfGE 79, 365 ) werden die Werte des Gegenstands der anwaltlichen Tätigkeit im Verfassungsbeschwerdeverfahren 1 BvR 2380/21 auf 120.000 Euro (in Worten: einhundertzwanzigtausend Euro) und im Verfahren 1 BvR 2449/21 auf 40.000 Euro (in Worten: vierzigtausend Euro) festgesetzt.

Richter Wolff ist im vorliegenden Verfahren nach § 18 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 BVerfGG von der Ausübung seines Richteramtes ausgeschlossen, weil er die Beschwerdeführerinnen zu I.1., 2. und 3. bis zu seiner Ernennung als Richter des Bundesverfassungsgerichts als Bevollmächtigter vertreten hat. Der Senat berät und entscheidet daher in verminderter Besetzung, § 19 Abs. 4 BVerfGG findet keine analoge Anwendung (vgl. BVerfGE 140, 115 m.w.N.).