BVerfG 2 BvQ 39/16•Interim relief denied for lack of substantiation
BVerfG 2 BvQ 39/16Bverfg / 2. Senat 2. KammerAug 18, 2016Dismissed
Extracted by Omnilex
The applicant applied to the Federal Constitutional Court for appointment of counsel and for an interim injunction. The Court rejected both requests. It held that appointment of counsel was unwarranted because the intended constitutional claim lacked sufficient prospects of success. The interim injunction request failed because the applicant had not adequately substantiated that the still-to-be-filed main application would be admissible and not manifestly unfounded. The decision is final and not subject to appeal.
§ 32 Abs. 1 BVerfGG; interim relief before the Federal Constitutional Court requires at least a substantiated showing that the intended main application is admissible and not obviously unfounded. A merely isolated application for interim measures is insufficient where the applicant does not set out the prerequisites of the anticipated principal proceedings. § 23 Abs. 1 S. 2 BVerfGG; appointment of counsel may be refused where the intended legal pursuit lacks sufficient prospects of success. The Court need not enter into the merits of the interim balancing test if the application is already inadequately substantiated as to the main proceedings (cf. consid. 2).
Entscheidungsdatum: 2016-08-18
Aktenzeichen: 2 BvQ 39/16
ECLI: ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2016:qk20160818.2bvq003916
Dokumenttyp: Ablehnung einstweilige Anordnung
Normen: § 23 Abs 1 S 2 BVerfGG, § 32 Abs 1 BVerfGG
Spruchkörper: 2. Senat 2. Kammer
Ablehnung des Erlasses einer einstweiligen Anordnung mit Tenorbegründung: Unzureichende Substantiierung des isolierten eA-Antrags bei mangelnder Darlegung der Zulässigkeit und Begründetheit des Hauptsacheantrags
Der Antrag auf Beiordnung von Rechtsanwalt W., wird abgelehnt, weil die beabsichtigte Rechtsverfolgung keine hinreichende Aussicht auf Erfolg bietet.
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, Rn. 2; Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 30. September 2015 - 2 BvQ 29/15 -, juris, Rn. 2; Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 14. Dezember 2015 - 2 BvQ 45/15 -, juris; Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 8. Februar 2016 - 2 BvQ 9/16 -, juris).
Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.
Extracted by Omnilex
Whether counsel should be appointed for the planned constitutional relief application.
Appointment of counsel was denied because the intended pursuit of rights did not have sufficient prospects of success.
The Court found the application lacked a sufficient showing of arguable success.
Whether an interim injunction should be issued despite the absence of a properly substantiated main application.
The request for interim relief was denied because the applicant did not substantiate that any main application, if filed, would be admissible and not obviously unfounded.
For interim relief, the applicant must at least plausibly demonstrate the admissibility and non-frivolous nature of the underlying main proceedings; this was not done.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.