Important information

    Due to the risk of infection with the coronavirus, the Federal Administrative Court remains closed for visitors until further notice.

    It is still possible to attend oral hearings when wearing a medical face or FFP2 mask. The courtrooms are fit to keep sufficient distance.

Search in ‘Judgments and decisions’

Judgment of 20 February 2020 - BVerwG 1 C 1.19 (uploaded on 24 March 2021)

Conformity, under the Gnandi decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union, of conjoining a rejection of asylum as simply unfounded with a deportation warning


1. Conjoining a decision rejecting an asylum application with a return decision in the form of a deportation warning conforms with the Return Directive 2008/115/EC only if it is ensured that the foreign national is allowed to remain until the relevant remedy against the rejection of the application is resolved, and that this remedy has its full effect.

2. This is not the case when a rejection of asylum is issued concurrently with a deportation warning setting a time period for departure that begins to run upon notification of the decision, as provided in section 38 (1) first sentence AsylG.

3. A deportation warning issued by the Federal Office together with the decision to reject an application for asylum as (simply) unfounded need not be annulled in court proceedings solely on account of a time period for departure set under section 38 (1) first sentence AsylG, because by virtue of law under section 38 (1) second sentence AsylG, once an action has been brought, that time period does not expire until 30 days after the incontestable conclusion of the asylum procedure, and thus the procedural rights and rights to protection and participation required under EU law are ensured.

4. A violation of the obligation to provide information for the foreign national on the procedural rights and rights of protection and participation to which EU law entitles him or her until the action is resolved does not render a deportation warning unlawful.

Judgment of 13 February 2020 - BVerwG 2 C 9.19 (uploaded on 19 January 2021)

Old-age benefit deduction for prematurely retired professional soldiers


1. The deduction provided for in section 7 (1) first sentence AltGG is compatible with the Basic Law.

2. In cases relating wholly to the situation within one Member State without any indications to EU law (internal cases), questions do not arise as to the conformity with EU law of such a deduction in view of the fundamental freedom of movement for workers pursuant to article 45 TFEU. Insofar, the purely hypothetical possibility of a future exercising or impairment of the right of free movement is not sufficient.

Decision of 18 December 2019 - BVerwG 1 C 2.19 (uploaded on 27 October 2020)

Decision to suspend the proceedings and to request a preliminary ruling on legal questions concerning the granting of refugee status derived from the family


A preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union is obtained on the following questions in accordance with article 267 TFEU:

1. Is article 3 of Directive 2011/95/EU to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a provision enacted by a Member State to the effect that the unmarried minor child of a person who has been granted refugee status must be granted refugee status derived from that person (that is to say, protection as a family member of a refugee) even in the case where that child - by virtue of the other parent - is, in any event, also a national of another country which is not the same as the refugee's country of origin and the protection of which that child is able to avail itself of?

2. Is article 23 (2) of Directive 2011/95/EU to be interpreted as meaning that, in the circumstances set out in question 1, the restriction whereby the entitlement of family members to claim the benefits referred to in articles 24 to 35 of that Directive is to be granted only as far as is compatible with the personal legal status of the family member prohibits the minor child from being granted refugee status derived from the person recognised as a refugee?

3. In providing an answer to questions 1 and 2, is it material whether or not it is possible and reasonable for the child and its parents to take up residence in the country of which the child and the mother are nationals, the protection of which they are able to avail themselves of and which is not the same as the refugee's (father's) country of origin, or is it sufficient that family unity in the federal territory can be maintained on the basis of the rules governing the right of residence?

Judgment of 13 November 2019 - BVerwG 2 C 35.18 (uploaded on 2 December 2020)

An opinion issued by the council for judicial appointments in a procedure for the election of federal judges cannot be challenged individually


1. A civil servant or judge who has been nominated for election as a judge at one of the supreme federal courts, but is not elected and who considers the opinion issued by the council for judicial appointments of the relevant supreme federal court to be unlawful cannot challenge such opinion individually, but only as part of an application for interim measures against the appointment of the candidates elected by the committee for the election of judges.

2. The legal effects of an opinion issued by the council for judicial appointments are limited to the procedure for the election of judges. The opinion has no legal consequences for the selection and deployment decisions in other areas.

Judgment of 24 October 2019 - BVerwG 2 C 3.18 (uploaded on 17 September 2020)

Disciplinary punishment of off-duty possession of child pornographic material in the form of image files by teachers


1. As a general rule, off-duty possession of child pornography - even in small quantity or of low-threshold content - by a teacher employed as a civil servant entails disciplinary removal of civil servant status by virtue of the loss of trust on the part of the employer and the general public associated with such possession.

2. Due to the different purposes of criminal law and disciplinary law, the specific penalty pronounced by way of sentencing does not have indicative effect limiting the determination of disciplinary measures.

Decision of 24 October 2019 - BVerwG 1 C 26.16 (uploaded on 10 March 2021)


1. In the case of unlawful failure to provide the opportunity to be heard in the administrative procedure, an atypical case to conduct an oral hearing in temporary relief proceedings can be assumed if EU law precludes the application of section 46 VwVfG whilst the possibility of a personal interview is mandatory at least in judicial proceedings. The oral hearing must in any case be conducted if an applicant invokes the procedural defect of insufficient opportunity to be heard in the administrative procedure or if this defect is clearly evident from the files and the court intends to dismiss the application.

2. If, under EU law, the possibility of being interviewed in person must always be ensured, even if the applicant - after not being heard by the Federal Office - has (had) sufficient opportunity in the judicial proceedings to set out all the circumstances in writing which mitigate against a decision of inadmissibility and/or if the reasons set out are (manifestly) not suitable for bringing about a more favourable decision to the applicant, there are serious doubts as to the lawfulness of the inadmissibility decision issued without the opportunity to be heard within the meaning of the section 36 (4) first sentence AsylG. The court is then prevented from dismissing the application in written proceedings until the failure to conduct a personal interview with the applicant has been remedied in accordance with EU law.

Decision of 10 October 2019 - BVerwG 3 C 20.17 (uploaded on 6 January 2021)

Obligation of one Member State to recognise a driving licence renewed in another EU Member State after withdrawal of the right to drive vehicles on its national territory.


The following question on the interpretation of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (OJ L 403 p. 18) is referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:

Do article 2 (1) and article 11 (4) second subparagraph of Directive 2006/126/EC preclude a Member State, within the sovereign territory of which the holder of an EU driving licence for vehicles in categories A and B issued by another Member State had his or her right to drive motor vehicles in the first Member State under that driving licence withdrawn because of drink-driving, from refusing to recognise a driving licence for those categories which was issued to the person concerned in the second Member State, after that right had been withdrawn, through renewal of the licence pursuant to article 7 (3) second subparagraph of Directive 2006/126/EC?

Judgment of 26 September 2019 - BVerwG 2 C 32.18 (uploaded on 25 November 2020)

Identification obligation for police officers; proportionality and implementation of EU requirements


The legal obligation of uniformed police officers of the federal state of Brandenburg to wear a name tag and identification in the course of operations in a separate unit in accordance with section 9 (2) BbgPolG is constitutional.

No results found.

FAQFrequently asked questions

  • What judgments or decisions of the Federal Administrative Court can I find on the website?

    You can find rulings of the Federal Administrative Court from January 2002 onwards on this website. Excluded are inter alia

    • Decisions regarding values of the matter in dispute
    • Determinations of costs
    • Third-party summons
    • Settlement deals
    • Rulings that are classified or that have been rendered incomprehensible or distorted by the anonymisation required by law.

    Rulings of the Federal Administrative Court passed before the year 2002 will gradually be added to the website. You can also find abbreviated versions of several several rulings in English.

  • When is the decision text for a judgment made available?

    It is usually published several weeks, in some cases also several months, after the delivery of a judgment.

    The background of this is as follows: In general, the Federal Administrative Court passes a judgment after a hearing and a deliberation. At that point in time, there is a ruling, the operative part of the judgment (so-called Tenor), but the text of the reasons for the ruling is not available yet. The written reasons will only be drawn up, a vote on them will be taken by the Senate, and they will be signed after the passing. Then the judgment will be delivered to all parties involved in the proceedings, anonymised and published.

  • What is the ECLI and what is it used for?

    ECLI is the abbreviation for the European Case Law Identifier. It serves to identify court rulings and enables cross-border search in a European judgment database. The ECLI allows for the linking of several sources and versions such as summaries, translations and comments for a judgment or decision. The ECLI often does not only lead you to just a single judgment, but to many other documents regarding this judgment.

  • How can I do research all over Europe using the ECLI?

    You can use the ECLI to do research in all participating national and European databases. That includes: