BVerfG 1 BvR 963/16•Constitutional complaint inadmissible for insufficient substantiation
BVerfG 1 BvR 963/16Bverfg / 1. Senat 2. KammerMar 9, 2017Inadmissible
Extracted by Omnilex
The Federal Constitutional Court did not admit the constitutional complaint. It held that the complainant failed to deal sufficiently with the challenged decisions and did not substantiate, as required, that her fundamental rights might have been violated. The Court therefore found the complaint inadmissible and dispensed with further reasons under § 93d(1) sentence 3 BVerfGG. The decision is final and unappealable.
§ 23 Abs. 1 S. 2, § 92 BVerfGG; requirements of substantiation for a constitutional complaint. A constitutional complaint is inadmissible if it does not engage in a sufficiently specific manner with the challenged decisions and fails to set out, in a substantiated way, why a violation of fundamental rights may arise. Mere assertion of constitutional infringement is insufficient; the complainant must address the reasoning of the impugned decisions and demonstrate the possible rights violation with regard to the facts and legal assessment. If these requirements are not met, non-admission follows; the Court may refrain from further reasoning pursuant to § 93d Abs. 1 S. 3 BVerfGG.
Entscheidungsdatum: 2017-03-09
Aktenzeichen: 1 BvR 963/16
ECLI: ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2017:rk20170309.1bvr096316
Dokumenttyp: Nichtannahmebeschluss
Normen: § 23 Abs 1 S 2 BVerfGG, § 92 BVerfGG
Vorinstanz: vorgehend BGH, 9. März 2016, Az: XII ZB 540/14, Beschlussvorgehend OLG Karlsruhe, 16. September 2014, Az: 20 UF 4/13, Beschlussvorgehend AG Weinheim, 3. Dezember 2012, Az: 201 F 90/08 VA, Beschluss
Spruchkörper: 1. Senat 2. Kammer
Nichtannahme einer mangels hinreichender Substantiierung unzulässigen Verfassungsbeschwerde - Tenorbegründung
Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen. Sie ist unzulässig, da sie sich nicht hinreichend mit den angegriffenen Entscheidungen auseinandersetzt und nicht substantiiert darlegt, dass die Beschwerdeführerin in ihren Grundrechten verletzt sein könnte (§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG).
Von einer weiteren Begründung wird nach § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.
Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.
Extracted by Omnilex
Whether the constitutional complaint met the admissibility requirements of sufficient substantiation.
No. The complaint did not adequately engage with the challenged decisions and did not substantiate a possible violation of fundamental rights.
Under § 23(1) sentence 2 and § 92 BVerfGG, a constitutional complaint must explain in a substantiated manner why the challenged decisions may violate fundamental rights. That was not done here.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.