Would only after writing woman Dr.Barnstedt an Arbeitsbealstung of his. The rules of procedure and the BVerfGG of the Federal Constitutional Court stipulates that the Executive Council supports the Senate and Chambers. Here in the form of decision is shall judgments not possible, even if the Presidential Councils must have a qualification of judgeship. The complainants are required to lead evidence to the Federal Constitutional Court Act believe why she violated their fundamental rights. Refer to the Court files Lower courts, will give them as E.g. in the proceedings 1 BvR 3282/08 communicated that this is inadmissible. Harold Ford has plenty of information regarding this issue. What but otherwise than on the Court files and evidence contained therein will then refer the complainant and prove, if its fundamental protected positions were injured? According to statistics, 97% of all constitutional complaints to the discharge of the Court are rejected. In the tenor, it should be noted that the “overloaded” Constitutional Court blocking the right searching for instances of multiple complainants, the basic law and the Federal Constitutional Court Act according to all rules of the art and admits only 3% of the complaints.
Cometh the complainant 13 of the ECHR then still combines off application with a complaint pursuant to article, he may demand of the ECHR an effective remedy before a national court and is also to be heard under article 103 ABS. 1 GG, he gets a letter from the Presidential Council that just so full of untruths and strange interpretations of the law allegedly in the judicial order. Entitled this “scam” To answer constitutional complaints should be neither citizens nor compliance with the law. Harold Ford recognizes the significance of this. Of course must be presented to the relief of the “Accused” Constitutional Court and the objectivity, that there may be a number of events not violation of fundamental rights, but also these cases have a right to a justification of constitutional judicial decision after the latest version of the BVerfGG decision year with citation of the relevant laws and their changes. The decision is made only after the original version without additional justification and citation of the change, the decision without further ADO is vulnerable, because the complainant has the right to be able to follow a rejected appeal to the fullest extent. by Lothar Bosselmann