projects

Constitutional complaint inadmissible for failure to seek prior judicial relief

BVerfG 2 BvR 862/15Bverfg / 2. Senat 2. KammerMay 19, 2015Inadmissible

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The Federal Constitutional Court did not admit the constitutional complaint challenging authorization of an involuntary medical measure. It held the complaint inadmissible because the complainant had not demonstrated that he had first sought available specialist court protection against the forced treatment. The court noted that an appeal against the order of the Amtsgericht Rüdesheim am Rhein was available under the Family Matters Act and the Civil Code. It declined any further reasoning and declared the decision non-appealable.

Omnilex headnote

§ 90 Abs. 2 BVerfGG; admissibility of a constitutional complaint against authorization of involuntary medical treatment; the complainant must first exhaust available specialist court remedies. Where an appeal is available under the FamFG against the approval of a medical coercive measure pursuant to § 312 sentence 1 no. 1 FamFG in conjunction with § 1906(1)-(3a) BGB, failure to seek such relief renders the constitutional complaint inadmissible (consid. 1-2). The Federal Constitutional Court may then refrain from further reasoning under § 93d Abs. 1 sentence 3 BVerfGG (consid. 3).

Full text

BVerfG — 2 BvR 862/15, Nichtannahmebeschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2015-05-19

Aktenzeichen: 2 BvR 862/15

ECLI: ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2015:rk20150519.2bvr086215

Dokumenttyp: Nichtannahmebeschluss

Spruchkörper: 2. Senat 2. Kammer

Titelzeile

Nichtannahmebeschluss: Parallelentscheidung

Gründe

1 Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen, weil sie keine Aussicht auf Erfolg hat. Sie ist unzulässig, weil nicht ersichtlich ist, dass der Beschwerdeführer vor Erheben der Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen die Zwangsbehandlung um fachgerichtlichen Rechtsschutz nachgesucht hat (§ 90 Abs. 2 BVerfGG).

2 Gegen die durch das Amtsgericht Rüdesheim am Rhein erfolgte Genehmigung der Einwilligung in eine ärztliche Zwangsmaßnahme nach § 312 Satz 1 Nr. 1 FamFG in Verbindung mit § 1906 Abs. 1 bis 3a BGB kann der Beschwerdeführer gemäß § 58 Abs. 1, § 64 Abs. 1 Satz 1 FamFG Beschwerde beim Amtsgericht Rüdesheim am Rhein einlegen.

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

4 Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.

Keywords

constitutional complaintinadmissibilityexhaustion of remediesinvoluntary medical treatmentfamily court appeal

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the constitutional complaint was admissible despite no prior request for specialist court protection against forced treatment.

Extracted holding

The complaint was not admitted because it was inadmissible; the complainant had not shown that he had first sought judicial relief against the forced treatment.

Extracted reasoning

Under § 90(2) BVerfGG, constitutional complaint requires exhaustion of available legal remedies. The decision states that an appeal to the Amtsgericht Rüdesheim am Rhein was available against the approval under § 312 sentence 1 no. 1 FamFG in conjunction with § 1906(1)-(3a) BGB.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.