Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 BvR 677/25 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2025:rk20250627.2bvr067725 Generato dall'IA

Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint and recusal request targeting unnamed judges

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 677/25
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 dismissed the constitutional complaint as inadmissible, rendering the associated requests for interim relief moot, thereby upholding the status quo in favor of the state authorities. The dispute concerned a recusal request filed against unnamed judges and a subsequent constitutional complaint challenging that recusal dismissal, characterized by the absence of specific judicial identification and relying on an inadequate factual basis. The court found the recusal application obviously inadmissible under established case law prohibiting generic requests against non-named judges and the constitutional complaint manifestly inadmissible due to this defect, pursuant to § 93d BVerfGG, with no further detailed reasoning required.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG, § 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG; Inadmissibility of constitutional complaint and recusal request targeting unnamed judges: The dispute concerned a recusal request filed against unnamed judges and a subsequent constitutional complaint challenging that recusal dismissal, characterized by the absence of specific judicial identification and relying on an inadequate factual basis. The court found the recusal application obviously inadmissible under established case law prohibiting generic requests against non-named judges and the constitutional complaint manifestly inadmissible due to this defect, pursuant to § 93d BVerfGG, with no further detailed reasoning required.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali procedimento sommario istanza di ricusazione tardiva diritto processuale restituzione in pristino durata dell'espulsione giudiziaria

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a further detailed reasoning for the decision.
§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG
Cited in the dispositive to declare the requests for interim relief void following the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerfGE 11, 1
BVerfGE 11, 1; 46, 200; 72, 51 ).
BVerfGE 159, 26
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 956/18
Manifestly inadmissible recusal motion against unnamed constitutional court judges lacking specific identification and concrete factual basis
1 BvR 2022/18
Recusal petition and constitutional complaint dismissed for obvious inadmissibility due to failure to name specific judges and insufficient justification of bias
1 BvR 486/17
Recusal motion against unidentified constitutional court judges deemed obviously inadmissible for lack of specific designation
1 BvR 1413/18
Admissibility of recusal motion in constitutional complaint proceedings requiring specific naming of judges
1 BvR 1572/20
Recusal motion against unnamed judges deemed manifestly inadmissible for lack of specific identification and clear grounds

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG

Cited in the dispositive to declare the requests for interim relief void following the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint.

§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a further detailed reasoning for the decision.

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 offensichtlich unzulässigen Verfassungsbeschwerde ohne weitere Begründung - Verwerfung eines pauschal gegen namentlich nicht genannte Richterinnen und Richter erhobenen, mithin offensichtlich unzulässigen Ablehnungsgesuchs.

[TENOR]

Die Ablehnung der nicht namentlich genannten Richterinnen oder Richter ist unzulässig.

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

Mit der Nichtannahme der Verfassungsbeschwerde werden die Anträge auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung gegenstandslos (§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG).

[GRUENDE]

1. Das Ablehnungsgesuch ist offensichtlich unzulässig. Es richtet sich pauschal gegen nicht namentlich genannte Richterinnen und Richter (vgl. BVerfGE 11, 1; 46, 200; 72, 51 ). Zudem stützt es sich auf eine gänzlich ungeeignete Begründung (vgl. BVerfGE 159, 26 m.w.N. - Äußerungen der Bundeskanzlerin Merkel in Südafrika - Befangenheitsgesuch).

2. Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist nicht zur Entscheidung anzunehmen, da sie offenkundig unzulässig ist.

3. Mit der Nichtannahme der Verfassungsbeschwerde werden die Anträge auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung gegenstandslos (§ 40 Abs. 3 GOBVerfG).

4. Von einer weiteren Begründung wird nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.