projets

Non-admission of constitutional complaint for insufficient showing of hearing violation

BVerfG 2 BvR 436/16Bverfg / 2. Senat 1. Kammer29 août 2016Dismissed

Ouvrir la source

Extrait par Omnilex

Résumé Omnilex

The Federal Constitutional Court’s First Chamber of the Second Senate did not admit the constitutional complaint. It held that the complainant had not demonstrated that the Administrative Court’s judgment depended on the alleged violation of the right to be heard. The judgment was independently based on the finding that adequate medical treatment was available in North Macedonia, and no specific objection had been raised against that ground. The complainant also failed to explain what she would have submitted had the court given the procedural hint she claimed was missing. The decision is final.

Regeste Omnilex

Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG, § 93d Abs. 1 S. 3 BVerfGG; an alleged violation of the right to be heard can justify the admission of a constitutional complaint only if it is sufficiently shown that the challenged decision may have rested on the procedural defect. This requires substantiation not merely of the hearing violation itself, but also of causation between the defect and the decision. Where the impugned judgment is independently supported by an alternative, self-standing ground and that ground is not specifically attacked, the complaint fails to demonstrate reliance. Likewise, the complainant must indicate what additional submissions would have been made absent the alleged omission (consid. tenor).

Texte intégral

BVerfG — 2 BvR 436/16, Kammerbeschluss ohne Begründung

Entscheidungsdatum: 2016-08-29

Aktenzeichen: 2 BvR 436/16

ECLI: ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2016:rk20160829.2bvr043616

Dokumenttyp: Kammerbeschluss ohne Begründung

Normen: Art 103 Abs 1 GG, § 93d Abs 1 S 3 BVerfGG

Vorinstanz: vorgehend Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, 7. Januar 2016, Az: 1 A 11108/15.OVG, Beschlussvorgehend VG Trier, 20. Oktober 2015, Az: 1 K 1186/15.TR, Urteil

Spruchkörper: 2. Senat 1. Kammer

Titelzeile

Nichtannahmebeschluss mit Tenorbegründung: Unzureichende Darlegung des Beruhens der angegriffenen Entscheidung auf dem gerügten Gehörsverstoß

Tenor

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen. Die Beschwerdeführerin hat nicht dargelegt, dass die angegriffene Entscheidung des Verwaltungsgerichts auf einem Gehörsverstoß beruht. Diese Entscheidung ist selbstständig tragend damit begründet, in Mazedonien bestünden hinreichende medizinische Behandlungsmöglichkeiten, ohne dass die Beschwerdeführerin hiergegen eine Rüge vorgetragen hätte. Auf die übrigen Rügen kommt es deshalb nicht an; im Übrigen hat die Beschwerdeführerin nicht dargelegt, was sie, hätte das Gericht sie aus ihrer Sicht hinreichend auf die Prozesslage hingewiesen, noch vorgetragen hätte.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.

Mots-clés

constitutional complaintright to be heardadmissibilitycausationmedical treatment abroad

Extrait par Omnilex

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Omnilex

Question juridique clé

Whether the constitutional complaint was admissible despite the complainant's failure to show that the challenged judgment rested on the alleged hearing violation.

Solution extraite

The complaint was not admitted because the complainant did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Administrative Court's decision was based on the alleged violation of the right to be heard.

Motifs extraits

The challenged judgment was independently supported by the finding that adequate medical treatment was available in North Macedonia; the complainant did not raise a specific objection to that self-standing ground. Because she also did not explain what further submissions she would have made had the court pointed out the procedural situation, the requirements for showing reliance were not met.

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.