verfassungsbeschwerde

/verfassungsrecht:verfassungsbeschwerde

Purpose

The constitutional complaint under Art. 93(1) No. 4a GG, §§ 90 et seq. BVerfGG is the subsidiary extraordinary legal remedy for enforcing fundamental rights and rights equivalent to fundamental rights. Most constitutional complaints fail at the admissibility — subsidiarity, time limit, substantiation requirements. This skill reviews each of the seven admissibility stages, then the merits (fundamental rights review) and provides a draft pleading.

Inputs

challenged act of public authority (statute / administrative act / judgment) incl. date and issuing body
challenged fundamental right or right equivalent to a fundamental right (Art. 1–19 GG, Art. 20(4), Art. 33, 38, 101, 103, 104 GG)
procedural status of the specialist courts (instances, last decision, date of service)
complainant (natural/legal person, seat/nationality)
if applicable, urgency (§ 32 BVerfGG)

Sub-agent architecture

Researcher provides statutes and BVerfG case law on admissibility and the relevant fundamental right. Drafter prepares the admissibility and merits review in opinion style as well as the draft pleading in judgment style with applications. Reviewer checks the time limit (§ 93 BVerfGG), substantiation, subsidiarity and the acceptance requirements.

Process

1. Admissibility (§§ 90 et seq. BVerfGG)

Stage	Standard
Capacity to file a complaint	“Everyone”, Art. 19(3) GG for legal persons under private law; legal persons under public law generally not (exceptions: broadcasting corporations, universities, religious communities — cf. BVerfGE 21, 362)
Subject matter of the complaint	Act of public authority (legislature, executive, judiciary)
Standing to file a complaint	Personally, presently, directly affected + substantiated possibility of a violation of a fundamental right (§§ 23(1), 92 BVerfGG)
Exhaustion of legal remedies	§ 90(2) sentence 1 BVerfGG: legal recourse through the specialist courts fully exhausted
Subsidiarity (in the broader sense)	Even outside legal recourse, reasonable remedies exhausted (hearing complaint § 152a VwGO / § 321a ZPO, objection, clarification of facts by the specialist courts)
Time limit	One-month time limit § 93(1) BVerfGG for judgments / burdensome acts of public authority; one-year time limit § 93(3) BVerfGG for statutes
Form	Written form, substantiation with designation of the challenged right and the act of public authority (§§ 23, 92 BVerfGG)

Acceptance procedure: § 93a(2) BVerfGG — fundamental constitutional significance or acceptance for the enforcement of the rights named in § 90(1) BVerfGG is indicated (in particular, particularly severe disadvantage).

2. Merits — Fundamental Rights Review

The constitutional complaint is well-founded if the challenged act of public authority violates the complainant in a fundamental right or a right equivalent to a fundamental right. Review according to the 3-stage scheme (see /verfassungsrecht:grundrechtspruefung): scope of protection → interference → constitutional justification.

Special feature of a constitutional complaint against a judgment: the Federal Constitutional Court does not review every error of ordinary law, but only the violation of specific constitutional law (so-called Heck formula — BVerfGE 18, 85).

3. Preliminary injunction (§ 32 BVerfGG)

If there is urgency: separate application. Double hypothetical weighing of consequences — the Federal Constitutional Court weighs the disadvantages of granting / not granting without anticipating the main proceedings.

4. Binding effect of the decision

§ 31 BVerfGG is the statutory exception to the principle of “no binding precedent”: the supporting reasons bind all constitutional organs as well as all courts and authorities; decisions under § 13 nos. 6, 6a, 11, 12, 14 BVerfGG have the force of law.

5. Personal file / internal documentation

Deadline calendar with reminder 7 days before expiry of the one-month period under § 93(1) BVerfGG. Secure the original proof of service of the last decision of the specialized court.

Sources and citation style

Binding: ../../references/zitierweise.md.

Statute

Art. 93(1) no. 4a GG (constitutional complaint)
Art. 5(1) GG (freedom of expression/press — a fundamental right frequently asserted in constitutional complaints against judgments)
§ 90 BVerfGG (standing to complain, exhaustion of legal remedies)
§ 92 BVerfGG (statement of reasons)
§ 93 BVerfGG (time limit)
§ 93a BVerfGG (admissibility procedure)
§ 31 BVerfGG (binding effect, force of law)
§ 32 BVerfGG (preliminary injunction)
§ 23 BVerfGG (written form)

Commentaries

Bethge, in: Maunz/Schmidt-Bleibtreu/Klein/Bethge, BVerfGG, loose-leaf (as of: current supplement), § 90 marginal no. 1 et seq.
Sperlich, in: Umbach/Clemens/Dollinger, BVerfGG, 2nd ed. 2005, § 90 marginal no. 1 et seq.
Bethge, in: Maunz/Schmidt-Bleibtreu/Klein/Bethge, BVerfGG, § 93 marginal no. 1 et seq. (time limit)
Schlaich/Korioth, Das Bundesverfassungsgericht, 12th ed. 2021, marginal no. 198 et seq. (constitutional complaint)

Case law

BVerfG, judgment of 15.01.1958 – 1 BvR 400/51, BVerfGE 7, 198 (“Lüth”, indirect third-party effect, doctrine of interaction)
BVerfG, order of 10.06.1964 – 1 BvR 37/63, BVerfGE 18, 85 (“Heck formula”, scope of review in constitutional complaints against judgments)
BVerfG, BVerfGE 90, 22 (admissibility procedure § 93a BVerfGG) [Datum/Aktenzeichen unverifiziert – prüfen]
BVerfG, BVerfGE 26, 246 (subsidiarity / Ingenieurgesetz) [Datum/Aktenzeichen unverifiziert – prüfen]

Output format

GUTACHTEN VERFASSUNGSBESCHWERDE
<Datum> — <Skill-Mandat-ID>

A. Sachverhalt
   <knapp, anonymisiert>

B. Frage
   Ist eine Verfassungsbeschwerde des/der … gegen <Hoheitsakt> zulässig
   und begründet?

C. Kurzantwort
   <1 Satz>

D. Zulässigkeit
   I.   Beschwerdefähigkeit (§ 90 I BVerfGG)
   II.  Beschwerdegegenstand
   III. Beschwerdebefugnis (selbst/gegenwärtig/unmittelbar; Möglichkeit
        einer Grundrechtsverletzung, §§ 23 I, 92 BVerfGG)
   IV.  Rechtswegerschöpfung (§ 90 II 1 BVerfGG)
   V.   Subsidiarität i.w.S.
   VI.  Frist (§ 93 I bzw. III BVerfGG)
   VII. Form (§§ 23 I, 92 BVerfGG)
   VIII.Annahmevoraussetzungen (§ 93a II BVerfGG)

E. Begründetheit
   I.   Schutzbereich Art. … GG
   II.  Eingriff
   III. Verfassungsrechtliche Rechtfertigung
        1. Schranken
        2. Schranken-Schranken (insb. Verhältnismäßigkeit)

F. Ergebnis
   <Zulässigkeit ✅/❌; Begründetheit ✅/❌; Annahmeprognose>

G. Risiken / offene Punkte
   - Fristanker: Zustellung am <Datum>? bestätigen
   - Subsidiarität: Anhörungsrüge erhoben?
   - Beschwerdebefugnis bei Gesetzen: unmittelbare Betroffenheit?

H. Quellenverzeichnis

— — —

SCHRIFTSATZ AN DAS BUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHT (Entwurf)

An das Bundesverfassungsgericht
Schlossbezirk 3
76131 Karlsruhe

In dem Verfassungsbeschwerdeverfahren des/der
   <Beschwerdeführer>

gegen
   <Hoheitsakt + Aussteller + Datum + Az.>

wegen Verletzung des/der Art. … GG

stelle ich namens und in Vollmacht des Beschwerdeführers folgende Anträge:

1. Es wird festgestellt, dass <Hoheitsakt> den Beschwerdeführer in seinem
   Grundrecht aus Art. … GG verletzt.
2. <Hoheitsakt> wird aufgehoben / das Verfahren an das <Fachgericht>
   zurückverwiesen.
3. ggf.: Es wird der Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung gemäß § 32
   BVerfGG beantragt.

Begründung:
A. Sachverhalt
B. Zulässigkeit
C. Begründetheit
D. Anlagen (letzte fachgerichtliche Entscheidung mit Zustellurkunde,
   Vollmacht, ggf. weitere Belege)

Risks / typical mistakes

Deadline missed (Section 93(1) BVerfGG) — most common ground for rejection. Secure the date of service.
Subsidiarity not observed — forgetting the hearing complaint under Section 321a ZPO / Section 152a VwGO as a reasonable remedy.
Insufficient substantiation (Sections 23, 92 BVerfGG) — the constitutional right complained of and the possibility of its violation must be apparent from the submission itself.
Standing to complain in the case of statutes — direct affectedness is often lacking because an enforcement act is still interposed.
Arguing with “the BVerfG has decided, therefore it applies” without Section 31 BVerfGG — precedent binding exists only there.
Acceptance procedure under Section 93a BVerfGG not addressed — even admissible complaints will not be accepted for decision if no constitutional significance and no particularly severe disadvantage have been set out.