BVerfG 2 BvR 2507/16•Constitutional complaint against assisted-suicide ban inadmissible
BVerfG 2 BvR 2507/16Bverfg / 2. Senat 2. KammerJul 20, 2017Dismissed
Extracted by Omnilex
The Second Chamber of the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court rejected an inadmissible challenge against Judge Müller because he did not belong to the chamber hearing the case. It then declined to accept the constitutional complaint against Section 217 StGB, finding that the complainant lacked direct and present interference and therefore failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 93a(2) BVerfGG. The decision is final.
§ 90 BVerfGG, § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG; constitutional complaint against a statutory provision is inadmissible absent direct and present interference. A constitutional complaint requires present, immediate impact on the complainant; a merely mediated, future, or uncertain effect does not suffice. A challenge against a judge is inadmissible where the judge is not part of the deciding chamber and is not called to participate in the proceedings.
Entscheidungsdatum: 2017-07-20
Aktenzeichen: 2 BvR 2507/16
ECLI: ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2017:rk20170720.2bvr250716
Dokumenttyp: Kammerbeschluss ohne Begründung
Normen: § 90 BVerfGG, § 93a Abs 2 BVerfGG, § 217 StGB vom 10.12.2015
Spruchkörper: 2. Senat 2. Kammer
Nichtannahmebeschluss mit Tenorbegründung: Rechtssatzverfassungsbeschwerde gegen § 217 StGB idF vom 10.12.2015 (geschäftsmäßige Förderung der Selbsttötung) mangels unmittelbarer und gegenwärtiger Beschwer unzulässig - Verwerfung eines unzulässigen Ablehnungsgesuchs
Das Ablehnungsgesuch gegen den Richter Müller wird als unzulässig verworfen. Richter Müller ist nicht zur Mitwirkung in diesem Verfahren berufen. Er gehört nicht der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats an.
Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen. Sie erfüllt nicht die Annahmevoraussetzungen des § 93a Abs. 2 BVerfGG. Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist mangels unmittelbarer (BVerfGK 8, 75 <76>; 15, 491 <502>) und gegenwärtiger Beschwer (BVerfGE 1, 97 <102>; 43, 291 <385 f.>; 60, 360 <371>; 74, 297 <319>; 114, 258 <277>) unzulässig.
Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.
Extracted by Omnilex
Whether the challenge against Judge Müller was admissible
The challenge was inadmissible because Judge Müller was not assigned to participate in the proceedings and did not belong to the Second Chamber of the Second Senate.
A judge who is not part of the deciding chamber is not called to participate in the case; therefore a challenge against him lacks a procedural basis.
Whether the constitutional complaint should be accepted for decision
The complaint was not accepted because the requirements of Section 93a(2) BVerfGG were not met.
The complaint was inadmissible for lack of direct and present interference; without immediate and current injury, constitutional complaint standing is absent.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.