BVerfG 1 BvR 1984/15•Constitutional complaint not admitted; recusal motions rejected
BVerfG 1 BvR 1984/15Bverfg / 1. Senat 3. KammerMar 10, 2016Inadmissible
Extracted by Omnilex
The First Senate, Third Chamber of the Federal Constitutional Court dealt with a constitutional complaint and simultaneous motions to recuse Vice President Kirchhof and Judges Masing and Baer. It held that the recusal request was abusive and therefore inadmissible. The constitutional complaint itself was not admitted to decision; the Chamber relied on § 93d(1) sentence 3 BVerfGG and gave no further reasons. The decision is final and not subject to appeal.
§ 19 BVerfGG; abuse of the right to seek recusal renders a disqualification motion inadmissible. A motion for recusal may be rejected without substantive examination where it is manifestly abusive. § 93d Abs. 1 S. 3 BVerfGG permits the Chamber to refrain from further reasoning when a constitutional complaint is not admitted. Such a non-entry decision is final and not open to challenge.
Entscheidungsdatum: 2016-03-10
Aktenzeichen: 1 BvR 1984/15
ECLI: ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2016:rk20160310.1bvr198415
Dokumenttyp: Nichtannahmebeschluss
Normen: § 19 BVerfGG, § 93d Abs 1 S 3 BVerfGG
Spruchkörper: 1. Senat 3. Kammer
Nichtannahmebeschluss ohne weitere Begründung - Verwerfung mehrerer Ablehnungsgesuche
Die Anträge auf Ablehnung des Vizepräsidenten Kirchhof, des Richters Masing und der Richterin Baer werden als unzulässig verworfen.
Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.
1 Die Kammer entscheidet unter Mitwirkung des Vizepräsidenten Kirchhof, des Richters Masing und der Richterin Baer. Das gegen sie angebrachte Ablehnungsgesuch ist rechtsmissbräuchlich.
2 Von einer weiteren Begründung wird nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.
3 Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.
Extracted by Omnilex
Whether the recusal motions against Vice President Kirchhof, Judge Masing, and Judge Baer were admissible.
The motions were inadmissible because the recusal request was abusive.
The Chamber held that the motion for disqualification was rechtsmissbräuchlich and therefore could not be entertained.
Whether the constitutional complaint should be admitted for decision.
The constitutional complaint was not admitted.
The Chamber gave no further reasons pursuant to § 93d(1) sentence 3 BVerfGG.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.