BVerfG 2 BvR 1867/13•Non-admission of constitutional complaint for lack of serious disadvantage
BVerfG 2 BvR 1867/13Bverfg / 2. Senat 2. Kammer23 de fev. de 2015Dismissed
Extraído pela Omnilex
The Federal Constitutional Court, 2nd Senate, 2nd Chamber, refused to admit the complainant’s constitutional complaint. It held that the conditions for acceptance were not met because the complainant did not face a serious disadvantage from the non-admission. The decision is final and not subject to appeal.
§ 93a Abs. 2 Buchst. b BVerfGG; § 93d Abs. 1 S. 3 BVerfGG: A constitutional complaint is to be accepted only where this is indicated for the enforcement of constitutional rights or where the complainant would otherwise suffer a serious disadvantage. The serious-disadvantage threshold is not met where, on a chamber-level assessment, the consequences of non-admission do not weigh with sufficient intensity against the complainant; the chamber may rely on established case law for this appraisal (consid. n.a.). In such a case, the complaint is not admitted without further reasoning.
Entscheidungsdatum: 2015-02-23
Aktenzeichen: 2 BvR 1867/13
ECLI: ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2015:rk20150223.2bvr186713
Dokumenttyp: Kammerbeschluss ohne Begründung
Normen: § 93a Abs 2 Buchst b BVerfGG, § 93d Abs 1 S 3 BVerfGG
Vorinstanz: vorgehend OLG Stuttgart, 26. Juli 2013, Az: 4a Ws 155/13(V), Beschlussvorgehend LG Heilbronn, 11. Juni 2013, Az: 9 StVK 705/12 HN, Beschluss
Spruchkörper: 2. Senat 2. Kammer
Nichtannahme einer Urteilsverfassungsbeschwerde mangels eines schweren Nachteils für den Beschwerdeführer
Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen, da dem Beschwerdeführer durch die Nichtannahme kein schwerer Nachteil entsteht (vgl. BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 15. September 2014 - 2 BvR 2192/13 -, juris).
Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.
Extraído pela Omnilex
Whether the constitutional complaint should be admitted despite the absence of a serious disadvantage to the complainant.
The complaint was not admitted because the complainant would not suffer a serious disadvantage from the non-admission.
Admission requirements under § 93a(2)(b) BVerfGG were not met; the Court referred to its prior chamber case law on the serious-disadvantage threshold.
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.