BVerfG 1 BvR 2662/15•Non-admission of constitutional complaint; recusal requests inadmissible
BVerfG 1 BvR 2662/15Bverfg / 1. Senat 3. Kammer10 mar 2016Inadmissible
Estratto da Omnilex
The Federal Constitutional Court chamber, composed of Vice President Kirchhof and Judges Masing and Baer, held that the complainant’s recusal motions were abusive and therefore inadmissible. It also declined to accept the constitutional complaint for decision, giving no further reasoning under Section 93d(1) sentence 3 BVerfGG. The decision is final and not subject to appeal.
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; non-admission of a constitutional complaint and abusive recusal motions: A chamber may dispense with further reasoning when refusing to accept a constitutional complaint for decision. Requests for disqualification are inadmissible if they are manifestly abusive and serve only to obstruct the proceedings; such motions need not be examined on the merits.
Entscheidungsdatum: 2016-03-10
Aktenzeichen: 1 BvR 2662/15
ECLI: ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2016:rk20160310.1bvr266215
Dokumenttyp: Nichtannahmebeschluss
Vorinstanz: vorgehend Landessozialgericht Baden-Württemberg, 23. Juli 2015, Az: L 13 AS 2645/14 ER-B, Beschlussvorgehend Landessozialgericht Baden-Württemberg, 23. Juli 2015, Az: L 13 SF 2759/15 AB, Beschlussvorgehend Landessozialgericht Baden-Württemberg, 7. Juli 2015, Az: L 13 AS 2645/14 ER-B, Beschluss
Spruchkörper: 1. Senat 3. Kammer
Nichtannahmebeschluss: Parallelentscheidung
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.
Estratto da Omnilex
Whether the requests to recuse Vice President Kirchhof, Judge Masing, and Judge Baer were admissible
The recusal requests were inadmissible because they were abusive.
The chamber found the motions to be rechtsmissbräuchlich and therefore refused to consider them further.
Whether the constitutional complaint should be accepted for decision
The constitutional complaint was not accepted for decision.
The chamber saw no need for further reasoning and relied on Section 93d(1) sentence 3 BVerfGG.
Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.