Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 860/25 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2025:rk20250701.2bvr086025 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional complaint against conviction for aiding suicide: failure to prove misapprehension of standards for free and responsible will

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 860/25
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 (2nd Senate, 3rd Chamber) refused to accept the constitutional complaint for decision, declaring it inadmissible for failure to meet the requirements of § 23 Abs. 1 S. 2 and § 92 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), thereby leaving the lower courts' criminal convictions intact and rendering the request for interim relief moot. The dispute involved a physician challenging his conviction for manslaughter in the capacity of an indirect perpetrator for assisting the suicide of a patient deemed not to have acted with free and responsible will, alleging that the specialized courts violated constitutional standards regarding a free decision to commit suicide. The Court held that the complainant failed to demonstrate a plausible violation of fundamental rights, specifically failing to substantiate that the challenged decisions were based on a misapprehension of the established constitutional standards for assisting suicide, as previously defined in BVerfGE 153, 182.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 23 Absatz 1 Satz 2, § 92 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz, § 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG; Constitutional complaint against conviction for aiding suicide: failure to prove misapprehension of standards for free and responsible will: 1 S. 2 and § 92 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), thereby leaving the lower courts' criminal convictions intact and rendering the request for interim relief moot. The dispute involved a physician challenging his conviction for manslaughter in the capacity of an indirect perpetrator for assisting the suicide of a patient deemed not to have acted with free and responsible will, alleging that the specialized courts violated constitutional standards regarding a free decision to commit suicide. The Court held that the complainant failed to demonstrate a plausible violation of fundamental rights, specifically failing to substantiate that the challenged decisions were based on a misapprehension of the established constitutional standards for assisting suicide, as previously defined in BVerfGE 153, 182.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
omicidio passionale requisito costituzionale denuncia penale diritti fondamentali censura di violazione costituzionale errore giudiziario

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 23 Absatz 1 Satz 2, § 92 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz
Provisions cited in the dispositive to establish the inadmissibility of the constitutional complaint due to failure to meet specific pleading requirements.
§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG
Procedural rule cited in the dispositive to determine that the application for interim relief became moot upon the refusal to accept the main complaint.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 153, 182
BVerfGE 153, 182 - Suizidhilfe m.w.N.).
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 2506/16
Mootness of constitutional complaint challenging criminalization of commercial suicide facilitation following parallel precedent rendering the statute void.
2 BvR 2492/16
Constitutional complaint against criminalization of commercial suicide facilitation rejected for insufficient substantiation
2 BvR 1494/16
Constitutional challenge to the criminalization of commercial assistance in suicide; loss of interest due to prior invalidation of the statute
2 BvR 1807/16
Moot constitutional challenge to criminal prohibition on commercial suicide facilitation due to prior invalidation of statute
2 BvR 2667/16
Constitutional complaint against commercial suicide facilitation statute declared moot after prior parallel judgment invalidated the prohibition

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 23 Absatz 1 Satz 2, § 92 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz

Provisions cited in the dispositive to establish the inadmissibility of the constitutional complaint due to failure to meet specific pleading requirements.

§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG

Procedural rule cited in the dispositive to determine that the application for interim relief became moot upon the refusal to accept the main 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 ohne Begründung: Erfolglose Verfassungsbeschwerde eines Arztes gegen seine Verurteilung wegen Totschlags in mittelbarer Täterschaft nach Suizidbeihilfe bei einem nicht freiverantwortlich handelnden Suizidenten - mangelnde Darlegung einer Verkennung der verfassungsrechtlichen Anforderungen durch die fachgerichtlichen Entscheidungen

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen. Sie ist unzulässig, weil sie den Darlegungsanforderungen der § 23 Absatz 1 Satz 2, § 92 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz nicht genügt. Die Beschwerdebegründung zeigt die Möglichkeit einer Verletzung von Grundrechten oder grundrechtsgleichen Rechten des Beschwerdeführers nicht schlüssig auf. Insbesondere legt der Beschwerdeführer nicht schlüssig dar, dass die angegriffenen Entscheidungen auf einer Verkennung der verfassungsgerichtlichen Maßstäbe beruhen, die an eine freie Suizidentscheidung anzulegen sind (vgl. BVerfGE 153, 182 - Suizidhilfe m.w.N.).

Mit der Nichtannahme der Verfassungsbeschwerde wird der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung gegenstandslos (§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG).

[GRUENDE]

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.