projects

Rejected interim injunction for insufficient substantiation

BVerfG 2 BvQ 9/16Bverfg / 2. Senat 2. KammerFeb 8, 2016Dismissed

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The Federal Constitutional Court rejected an application for an interim injunction. It held that the applicant had not sufficiently substantiated that a possibly still to be filed main application would be admissible and not manifestly unfounded. The order is final and not subject to appeal.

Omnilex headnote

§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG; interim injunction before the Federal Constitutional Court: An application is to be rejected if the applicant fails to make a sufficiently substantiated showing, in accordance with §§ 23(1) sentence 2 and 92 BVerfGG, that the intended main application is neither inadmissible nor manifestly unfounded. The court does not enter into a full merits review at the interim stage; rather, the applicant must at least plausibly present the admissibility and arguable merits of the intended principal proceedings. If this threshold showing is lacking, provisional relief is denied.

Full text

BVerfG — 2 BvQ 9/16, Ablehnung einstweilige Anordnung

Entscheidungsdatum: 2016-02-08

Aktenzeichen: 2 BvQ 9/16

ECLI: ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2016:qk20160208.2bvq000916

Dokumenttyp: Ablehnung einstweilige Anordnung

Normen: § 23 Abs 1 S 2 BVerfGG, § 32 Abs 1 BVerfGG, § 92 BVerfGG

Spruchkörper: 2. Senat 2. Kammer

Titelzeile

Ablehnung eines Antrags auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung mit Tenorbegründung - unzureichende Substantiierung des eA-Antrags

Tenor

Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung wird abgelehnt, weil der Antragsteller nicht substantiiert dargelegt hat, dass der - gegebenenfalls noch zu stellende - Antrag in der Hauptsache weder unzulässig noch offensichtlich unbegründet ist (vgl. BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 20. August 2015 - 1 BvQ 28/15 -, juris; Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 30. September 2015 - 2 BvQ 29/15 -, juris).

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.

Keywords

interim reliefsubstantiationconstitutional complaintadmissibilitymanifestly unfounded

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether an interim injunction should be granted under Section 32(1) BVerfGG.

Extracted holding

The application was denied because the applicant did not substantiate that any main application to be filed would be neither inadmissible nor manifestly unfounded.

Extracted reasoning

Under the summary review applicable to interim relief, the applicant must at least plausibly show the admissibility and non-obvious merits of the intended constitutional complaint or main application; this threshold was not met.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

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