Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvQ 40/24 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2024:qk20240612.2bvq004024 Generato dall'IA

Interim relief against scheduled criminal trial hearings; insufficient substantiation of fundamental rights violations and procedural time limits for subsequent constitutional complaint

Numero d'incarto 2 BvQ 40/24
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 request for interim relief, leaving the criminal proceedings' schedule in force. The dispute involved a petition to overturn scheduled hearing dates in a criminal case, where the applicant failed to provide adequate reasoning for the constitutional complaint. The application was dismissed as inadmissible because the petitioner did not plausibly identify which fundamental rights were violated, making even a preliminary assessment of the merits or a balancing of consequences impossible; additionally, the court indicated that a subsequent constitutional complaint against the underlying lower court order would likely be time-barred.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Interim relief against scheduled criminal trial hearings; insufficient substantiation of fundamental rights violations and procedural time limits for subsequent constitutional complaint: The dispute involved a petition to overturn scheduled hearing dates in a criminal case, where the applicant failed to provide adequate reasoning for the constitutional complaint. The application was dismissed as inadmissible because the petitioner did not plausibly identify which fundamental rights were violated, making even a preliminary assessment of the merits or a balancing of consequences impossible; additionally, the court indicated that a subsequent constitutional complaint against the underlying lower court order would likely be time-barred.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
violazione dei diritti procedurali denuncia penale procedimento sommario limiti costituzionali procedura preparatoria diritti fondamentali
Generato dall'IA
2 BvQ 52/22
Inadmissibility of interim relief in criminal proceedings for lack of substantiated showing of fundamental rights violation and non-manifestly unfounded complaint
2 BvQ 46/25
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint against criminal trial scheduling as interlocutory decision
2 BvQ 45/22
Inadmissibility of constitutional interim relief for lack of substantiated showing that main complaint is not obviously unfounded
2 BvQ 10/22
Interim relief in mandatory prosecution proceedings: Failure to demonstrate that a constitutional complaint is neither manifestly inadmissible nor unfounded
1 BvR 928/26
Constitutional complaint over denial of legal hearing in social court interim proceedings: failure to substantiate causal link and exhaustion of legal remedies

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 auf Aufhebung von Verhandlungsterminen in einem Strafverfahren - unzureichende Antragsbegründung

[TENOR]

Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung wird abgelehnt.

[GRUENDE]

Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung ist unzulässig. Er ist nicht in einer Weise begründet, dass das Bundesverfassungsgericht wenigstens summarisch beurteilen kann, ob eine noch zu erhebende Verfassungsbeschwerde nicht von vorneherein unzulässig oder unbegründet wäre (vgl. BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 20. August 2015 - 1 BvQ 28/15 - Rn. 2; Beschluss der 3. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 9. Mai 2019 - 2 BvQ 46/19 -, juris, Rn. 2). Der Antragsteller legt nicht nachvollziehbar dar, in welchem Grundrecht er sich verletzt sieht. Gegenstand und Ablauf des strafgerichtlichen Verfahrens können bestenfalls in Ansätzen nachvollzogen werden. Eine verantwortbare verfassungsrechtliche Prüfung, auch im Sinne einer bloßen Folgenabwägung, ist auf Grundlage seiner Ausführungen nicht möglich. Überdies legen seine Ausführungen nahe, dass eine noch zu erhebende Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen den Beschluss des Landgerichts vom 18. April 2024 verfristet wäre.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.