Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 BvR 1169/25 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2025:rk20250820.1bvr116925 Generato dall'IA

Constitutional complaint in tax litigation: failure to substantiate violation of informational self-determination and breach of subsidiarity

Numero d'incarto 1 BvR 1169/25
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 (BVerfG) rejected the constitutional complaint, leaving the lower court tax proceedings unaffected. The complainant challenged a decision from the Federal Fiscal Court, alleging that their right to information self-determination under Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the German Basic Law was violated by the conduct of the oral hearing. The Court found the complaint inadmissible because it failed to satisfy the subsidiarity principle required by § 90(2) BVerfGG regarding the allegation of hindered presentation of arguments, and because the complainant did not substantiate a sufficient probability of personal harm or demonstrate why telecommunications employees had a specific interest in accessing the hearing data, as required by §§ 23(1) sentence 2 and 92 BVerfGG.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Constitutional complaint in tax litigation: failure to substantiate violation of informational self-determination and breach of subsidiarity: The complainant challenged a decision from the Federal Fiscal Court, alleging that their right to information self-determination under Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the German Basic Law was violated by the conduct of the oral hearing. The Court found the complaint inadmissible because it failed to satisfy the subsidiarity principle required by § 90(2) BVerfGG regarding the allegation of hindered presentation of arguments, and because the complainant did not substantiate a sufficient probability of personal harm or demonstrate why telecommunications employees had a specific interest in accessing the hearing data, as required by §§ 23(1) sentence 2 and 92 BVerfGG.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
procedura giudiziaria tributaria diritto all'autodeterminazione informativa diritto tributario requisito costituzionale udienza dibattimentale protezione dei dati di carattere personale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG
Von einer weiteren Begründung wird nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG
Procedural rule applied in the dispositive to waive the full written reasoning for the decision.
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 165/23
Tax constitutional complaint dismissed for insufficient substantiation and warning on abuse fees for manifestly hopeless filings
2 BvR 1049/25, 2 BvR 1070/25, 2 BvR 1082/25, 2 BvR 1288/25
Tax constitutional complaints rejected for insufficient substantiation of fundamental rights violation
2 BvR 914/16
Constitutional complaint over tax records injunction dismissed for failure to exhaust hearing objection remedy
1 BvR 1902/11
Admissibility of constitutional complaint challenging external tax audit procedures
1 BvR 2554/24
Failure to substantiate constitutional complaint against corporate misuse fee warning; rejection for lack of admissibility.

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Procedural rule applied in the dispositive to waive the full written 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

Nichtannahmebeschluss mit Tenorbegründung: Erfolglose Verfassungsbeschwerde in einer Steuersache

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen, weil sie mit Blick auf die Rüge gehinderten Vortrags in der mündlichen Verhandlung und die darin enthaltene Gehörsrüge schon den in § 90 Absatz 2 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz zum Ausdruck kommenden Subsidiaritätsgrundsatz nicht wahrt und sie zudem nicht in einer den Anforderungen des § 23 Absatz 1 Satz 2, § 92 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz entsprechenden Weise die Möglichkeit einer Verletzung des Rechts auf informationelle Selbstbestimmung (Art. 2 Abs. 1 i.V.m. Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG) darlegt, sie insbesondere nicht substantiiert eine hinreichende Wahrscheinlichkeit eigener Betroffenheit etwa dazu vorbringt, inwieweit im vorliegenden Fall individualisierte oder individualisierbare Daten Gegenstand der mündlichen Verhandlung waren und weshalb Mitarbeitende von Telekommunikationsanbietern ein Interesse an einem Zugriff auf die vor dem Bundesfinanzhof geführte Verhandlung haben sollten.

[GRUENDE]

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

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.