Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 1821/22 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2025:rk20250512.2bvr182122 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional complaint non-acceptance and recusal admissibility without substantive justification under § 93d BVerfGG

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 1821/22
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 of Germany declined to accept a constitutional complaint for review without providing a substantive justification, while simultaneously upholding the validity of the panel's composition and dismissing seven recusation motions against specific judges as inadmissible. The dispute concerned a constitutional challenge raised by a complainant who argued that the reviewing chamber was improperly constituted and submitted grounds for recusal against the presiding vice-president and several other judges, alleging bias or procedural defects. The court determined that the panel was regularly and lawfully composed and found the recusation requests manifestly inadmissible, referencing parallel decisions in identical matters to justify these procedural rulings. Relying on § 93d(1) sentence 3 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), the court exercised its discretion to forego a detailed explanation for the non-acceptance of the underlying constitutional complaint, thereby leaving the lower court's decision final and unchallengeable.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Constitutional complaint non-acceptance and recusal admissibility without substantive justification under § 93d BVerfGG: The dispute concerned a constitutional challenge raised by a complainant who argued that the reviewing chamber was improperly constituted and submitted grounds for recusal against the presiding vice-president and several other judges, alleging bias or procedural defects. The court determined that the panel was regularly and lawfully composed and found the recusation requests manifestly inadmissible, referencing parallel decisions in identical matters to justify these procedural rulings. Relying on § 93d(1) sentence 3 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), the court exercised its discretion to forego a detailed explanation for the non-acceptance of the underlying constitutional complaint, thereby leaving the lower court's decision final and unchallengeable.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
domanda di ricusazione esercizio del potere di apprezzamento motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali fondatezza materiale oggetto della lite sentenze sulla validità di un atto

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Cited as the basis for dispensing with a substantive justification for the decision not to accept the constitutional complaint for review.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 246/23
Recusal of constitutional court judges and chamber composition: insufficient justification and rejection of institutional bias claims
2 BvR 1847/23
Recusal of constitutional court judges and chamber composition: insufficient justification and rejection of institutional bias claims
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 1183/20
Inadmissibility of recusal motion based solely on prior judicial participation and absence of reasoning for non-acceptance of constitutional complaint
1 BvR 1984/15
Abusive recusal motions and non-acceptance of constitutional complaint
1 BvR 1126/17
Rejection of manifestly inadmissible recusal motions and non-admission of constitutional complaint without further reasoning under § 93d BVerfGG
1 BvR 1452/16
Constitutional complaint and recusal motion: Inadmissibility of recusal without substantive partiality evidence and lack of acceptance criteria for constitutional complaint
2 BvR 2361/16
Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint due to unsubstantiated judge recusal motion and lack of sufficient reasoning

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Cited as the basis for dispensing with a substantive justification for the decision not to accept the constitutional complaint for review.

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

Nichtannahmebeschluss ohne Begründung - erfolglose Besetzungsrüge sowie Verwerfung offensichtlich unzulässiger Ablehnungsgesuche - Parallelentscheidung

[TENOR]

Die 1. Kammer des Zweiten Senats des Bundesverfassungsgerichts ist ordnungsgemäß besetzt.

Die Ablehnungsgesuche gegen die Vizepräsidentin König, die Richterinnen Langenfeld und Fetzer sowie die Richter Maidowski, Offenloch, Frank und Wöckel werden als unzulässig verworfen.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

1. Die Kammer entscheidet in ihrer regelmäßigen planmäßigen Besetzung.

a) Auf die sinngemäße Besetzungsrüge der Beschwerdeführerin ist festzustellen, dass die 1. Kammer des Zweiten Senats ordnungsgemäß besetzt ist. Zur Begründung nimmt die Kammer Bezug auf ihren Beschluss vom heutigen Tag in den Verfahren 2 BvR 246/23 und 2 BvR 1847/23 (Rn. 3 f.), mit dem sie im Wesentlichen gleichlautend begründete Besetzungsrügen abschlägig beschieden hat.

b) Die von der Beschwerdeführerin gegen Vizepräsidentin König, die Richterinnen Langenfeld und Fetzer sowie die Richter Maidowski, Offenloch, Frank und Wöckel gerichteten Ablehnungsgesuche sind offensichtlich unzulässig. Auch insoweit nimmt die Kammer zur Begründung Bezug auf ihren Beschluss vom heutigen Tag in den Verfahren 2 BvR 246/23 und 2 BvR 1847/23 (Rn. 5 ff.), mit dem sie im Wesentlichen gleichlautend begründete Ablehnungsgesuche der Beschwerdeführerin verworfen hat.

2. Von einer Begründung der Nichtannahme der Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.