Wichtiger Hinweis

    Gemäß der geltenden Sächsischen Corona-Schutz-Verordnung dürfen Personengruppen, die das Gebäude betreten möchten und Angehörige verschiedener Hausstände umfassen, maximal aus 11 Personen bestehen (§ 2 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 SächsCoronaSchVO).

Search in ‘Judgments and decisions’


Decision of 4 July 2019 - BVerwG 7 C 31.17 (uploaded on 30 January 2020)

Request to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling regarding the insolvency administrator's access to information about tax data of revenue authorities

Headnotes

Request to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling regarding the insolvency administrator's access to information about tax data of revenue authorities.

The Court of Justice of the European Union is requested to clarify the following questions concerning the interpretation of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation, OJ L 119 of 4 May 2016, p. 1) by way of a preliminary ruling in accordance with article 267 TFEU:

1. Does article 23 (1) (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 also serve to protect the interests of revenue authorities?

2. If so, does the wording "the enforcement of civil law claims" also cover the defence of the revenue authority against civil law claims and must such claims already have been submitted?

3. Does the provision of article 23 (1) (e) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 relating to the protection of an important financial interest of a Member State in taxation matters allow a restriction of the right of access under article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 in relation to the defence of civil law insolvency avoidance claims against the revenue authority?

Decision of 14 May 2019 - BVerwG 1 C 5.18 (uploaded on 7 May 2020)

Decision to request a preliminary ruling concerning interpretation of article 12 (1) (a) of Directive 2011/95/EU

Headnotes

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. When assessing the question of whether, within the meaning of article 12 (1) (a) second sentence of Directive 2011/95/EU, a stateless Palestinian is no longer granted protection or assistance of the UNRWA, is account to be taken from a geographical perspective solely of the respective field of operation (Gaza Strip, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, West Bank) in which the stateless person had his or her actual residence upon leaving the area of operations of the UNRWA (in this case: Syria), or also of further fields of operation belonging to the area of operations of the UNRWA?

2. If account is not solely to be taken of the field of operation upon leaving: Is account always to be taken, regardless of further conditions, of all the fields of operation of the area of operations? If not: Are further fields of operation only to be taken into consideration if the stateless person had a substantial (territorial) connection to that field of operation? Is a habitual residence - at the time of or prior to leaving - required for such a connection? Are further circumstances to be taken into consideration when examining a substantial (territorial) connection? If so: Which ones? Does it matter whether it is possible and reasonable for the stateless person to enter the relevant field of operation when leaving the UNRWA area of operations?

3. Is a stateless person who leaves the area of operations of the UNRWA because his or her personal safety is at serious risk in the field of operation of his or her actual residence, and it is impossible for the UNRWA to grant him or her protection or assistance there, entitled, within the meaning of article 12 (1) (a) second sentence of Directive 2011/95/EU, ipso facto to the benefits of the Directive even if he or she previously went to that field of operation without his or her personal safety having been at serious risk in the field of operation of his or her former residence and without being able to expect, according to the circumstances at the time of the move, to experience protection or assistance by the UNRWA in the field of operation into which he or she moves and to return to the field of operation of his or her previous residence in the foreseeable future?

4. When assessing the question of whether a stateless person is not to be granted ipso facto refugee status because the conditions of article 12 (1) (a) second sentence of Directive 2011/95/EU ceased to apply once he or she left the area of operations of the UNRWA, is account to be taken solely of the field of operation of the last habitual residence? If not: Is consideration also, by analogy, to be given to the areas of which account is to be taken under no. 2 for the time of leaving? If not: Which criteria are to be used to determine the areas which are to be taken into consideration at the time of the decision on the application? Does the cessation of application of the conditions of article 12 (1) (a) second sentence of Directive 2011/95/EU require the (state or quasi-state) bodies in the relevant field of operation to be prepared to (re)admit the stateless person?

5. In the event that, in connection with the satisfaction or cessation of application of the conditions of article 12 (1) (a) second sentence of Directive 2011/95/EU, the field of operation of the (last) habitual residence is of significance: Which criteria are decisive for establishing habitual residence? Is lawful residence authorised by the country of residence required? If not: Is there at least a need for the conscious acceptance of the residence of the stateless person concerned by the responsible bodies of the field of operation? If so in this respect: Does the presence of the individual stateless person have to be specifically known to the responsible bodies or is the conscious acceptance of residence as a member of a larger group of people sufficient? If not: Is actual residence for a relatively long period of time sufficient in itself?

Decision of 9 May 2019 - BVerwG 1 C 14.19 (uploaded on 8 May 2020)

Decision to suspend proceedings and request for a preliminary ruling on legal questions concerning the scope of Directive 2008/115/EC

Headnotes

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. a) Does an entry ban issued against a third-country national for purposes "not related to migration" come within the scope of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ L 348 p. 98), at any rate if the Member State has not made use of the option under article 2 (2) (b) of that Directive?

b) If question 1. a) is answered in the negative: Does such an entry ban not come under Directive 2008/115/EC if the third-country national is already staying illegally regardless of an expulsion order issued against him, to which the entry ban is linked, and therefore in principle comes within the scope of the Directive?

c) Do entry bans issued for purposes "not related to migration" include entry bans issued in connection with an expulsion ordered for reasons of public security and order (in this case: solely on general preventive grounds with the objective of combating terrorism)?

2. If question 1 is answered to the effect that the present entry ban does come within the scope of Directive 2008/115/EC:

a) Does the administrative annulment of the return decision (in this case: the deportation warning) have the result that an entry ban, within the meaning of article 3 no.6 of Directive 2008/115/EC, ordered at the same time becomes unlawful?

b) Does this legal consequence arise even if the administrative expulsion order preceding the return decision is (or has become) legally binding?

Decision of 27 March 2019 - BVerwG 6 C 6.18 (uploaded on 23 April 2020)

Request for a preliminary ruling seeking clarification on the obligation to accept euro banknotes

Headnotes

1. Section 14 (1) second sentence BBankG provides for an obligation on the part of public bodies to accept euro banknotes in the fulfilment of statutorily imposed payment obligations. Exceptions may not be well based on grounds of administrative practicability or cost saving, but require an authorisation under federal law.

2. Whether section 14 (1) second sentence BBankG is consistent with the exclusive competence that the European Union enjoys in the area of monetary policy (article 2 (1) in conjunction with article 3 (1) (c) TFEU), whether article 128 (1) third sentence TFEU or other provisions of applicable substantive EU law contain a prohibition precluding public bodies of a Member State from refusing fulfilment of a statutorily imposed payment obligation in euro banknotes and whether section 14 (1) second sentence BBankG can be applied to the extent to which and for so long as the European Union has not made use of the exclusive competence it may enjoy, needs to be clarified by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

A preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union is obtained on the following questions:

1. Does the exclusive competence that the European Union, pursuant to article 2 (1) TFEU, in conjunction with article 3 (1) (c) TFEU, enjoys in the area of monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro preclude a legal act of one of those Member States that provides for an obligation on the part of public bodies of the Member State to accept euro banknotes in the fulfilment of statutorily imposed payment obligations?

2. Does the status as legal tender of banknotes denominated in euro, as established in article 128 (1) third sentence TFEU, article 16 (1) third sentence of Protocol (No 4) on the statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank and article 10 second sentence of Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro contain a prohibition precluding public bodies of a Member State from refusing fulfilment of a statutorily imposed payment obligation in such banknotes, or does EU law leave room for provisions that exclude payment in euro banknotes for certain statutorily imposed payment obligations?

3. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative and question 2 is answered in the negative: Can a legal act of a Member State whose currency is the euro which is adopted in the context of the European Union's exclusive competence in the area of monetary policy be applied to the extent to which, and for so long as, the European Union has not made use of its competence?

Decision of 14 March 2019 - BVerwG 2 VR 5.18 (uploaded on 17 September 2020)

No individual challenging of a medical examination order in forced retirement procedure

Headnotes

1. A medical examination order for determining the fitness for duty of a civil servant within the framework of a forced retirement procedure cannot be challenged individually in accordance with section 44a VwGO, but, if the civil servant fails to comply with the order, may only be subject to (indirect) judicial review within the framework of (temporary relief or ordinary) proceedings against the subsequent order for forced retirement.

2. In the case of a medical examination order based on the statutory assumption under section 44 (1) second sentence BBG (section 26 (1) second sentence BeamtStG) due to lengthy absences of the civil servant, the requirements developed by jurisprudence for cases of a medical examination order under section 44 (1) first sentence BBG (section 26 (1) first sentence BeamtStG) do not apply.

3. In the case of a medical examination order where the employer bases his or her doubts concerning the fitness for duty on section 44 (1) first sentence BBG (section 26 (1) first sentence BeamtStG) periods of absence that are below the time minimum threshold defined in section 44 (1) second sentence BBG (section 26 (1) second sentence BeamtStG) may justify a medical examination order as well.

4. A medical examination order under section 44 (1) second sentence BBG (section 26 (1) second sentence BeamtStG) that is based simply on periods of absence may also include psychiatric examinations.

5. A medical examination order, if necessary, may cover several appointments and examinations in different (specialist) medical fields. In particular, it may include the duty of the civil servant to undergo an additional medical examination if the physician responsible (public health officer) deems this to be necessary.

Decision of 31 January 2019 - BVerwG 1 WB 28.17 (uploaded on 3 December 2019)

Headnote

The rules for the hairstyle of soldiers in no. 202 of the Joint Service Directive A-2630/1 do not have a sufficiently specific basis for authorisation in section 4 (3) second sentence SG which would meet the requirements arising from the principle that calls for a specific enactment of a statute. However, they may continue to be applied for a transitional period.

Decision of 10 July 2018 - BVerwG 2 WDB 2.18 (uploaded on 11 July 2019)

Headnote

The immunity of a Member of the European Parliament establishes a procedural impediment to conducting a disciplinary proceeding in the military disciplinary and complaints courts. This also applies to proceedings initiated prior to the acquisition of membership ("legacy" proceedings).

Decision of 25 April 2018 - BVerwG 9 A 16.16 (uploaded on 28 October 2019)

Request for a preliminary ruling regarding the new construction of the A 33/B 61 motorway feeder road at Ummeln within the boundaries of the city of Bielefeld

Headnotes

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

1. Must article 11 (1) (b) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - hereinafter referred to as: EIA Directive - be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law is consistent with it, according to which a claimant who is not recognised as an environmental association is entitled to apply for the annulment of a decision due to a procedural defect only if the procedural defect has denied the claimant itself the opportunity - as provided for by statute - of participating in the decision-making process?

2. a) Must article 4 (1) (a) (i) to (iii) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, most recently amended by article 1 of Directive 2014/101/EU of the Commission of 30 October 2014 (OJ L 311 p. 32), - hereinafter referred to as: Water Framework Directive (WFD) - be interpreted as meaning that it does not only include substantive criteria for examination but, in addition, specifications regarding the regulatory approval procedure?

b) If question a) is answered in the affirmative,

must the involvement of the public pursuant to article 6 of the EIA Directive always relate to the documents regarding the assessment under water law in the aforementioned sense, or is it permissible to differentiate with regard to the time of the creation of the document and its complexity?

3. Must the term 'deterioration of the status of a body of groundwater' in article 4 (1) (b) (i) of the WFD be interpreted as meaning that a deterioration of the chemical status of a body of groundwater exists as soon as at least one environmental quality standard for one parameter is exceeded for project-related reasons and that irrespective of that, if the relevant threshold for one pollutant has already been exceeded, any additional (measurable) increase of the concentration constitutes a deterioration?

4. a) Taking into account its binding nature (article 288 TFEU) and the guarantee of effective legal protection (article 19 TEU), must article 4 of the WFD be interpreted as meaning that all members of the public concerned by a project who assert that the approval of a project breaches their rights are also entitled to bring judicial proceedings asserting breaches of the ban on the deterioration of water and the requirement for improvement?

b) If question a) is answered in the negative -

taking into account its objective - must article 4 of the WFD be interpreted as meaning that at least such claimants who maintain domestic wells for their private water supply in geographical proximity to the planned road are entitled to bring judicial proceedings asserting breaches of the ban on the deterioration of water and the requirement for improvement?

Decision of 12 April 2018 - BVerwG 3 C 20.16 (uploaded on 26 August 2019)

Whether airport users have standing to challenge an approval of the charging scheme

Headnotes

A preliminary ruling is to be obtained from the Court of Justice of the European Union to clarify preliminary questions of EU law in connection with the issue whether airport users have standing (section 42 (2) VwGO) to bring an action for the annulment of an approval of a scheme of airport charges.

The following questions on the interpretation of Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges (OJ L 70 p. 11) are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:

1. Is a national provision which provides that the system of airport charges decided upon by the airport managing body must be submitted to the independent supervisory authority for approval, without prohibiting the airport managing body and the airport user from setting charges different from those approved by the supervisory authority, compatible with Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges (OJ L 70 p. 11), in particular article 3, article 6 (3) to (5) and article 11 (1) and (7) thereof?

2. Is an interpretation of national law whereby an airport user is prevented from challenging the approval of the charging scheme by the independent supervisory authority, but can bring an action against the airport managing body and can plead in that action that the charges determined in the charging scheme are inequitable, compatible with the aforementioned Directive?

Decision of 2 August 2017 - BVerwG 1 C 37.16 (uploaded on 9 September 2020)

Request to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling

Headnotes

The proceedings are suspended.

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. Does EU law preclude a Member State (in this case: Germany) from rejecting an application for international protection as inadmissible on the grounds that refugee status has been granted in another Member State (in this case: Bulgaria), in implementation of the power under article 33 (2) (a) of Directive 2013/32/EU or under the rule in article 25 (2) (a) of Directive 2005/85/EC that preceded it, if the form which the international protection takes, and more specifically, the living conditions of persons qualifying as refugees, in the other Member State which has already granted the applicant international protection (in this case: Bulgaria),

a) does not satisfy the requirements of article 20 et seqq. of Directive 2011/95/EU and/or

b) breaches article 4 CFR and/or article 3 ECHR?

2. If question 1 a) or b) is to be answered in the affirmative: Does this also apply if

a) recognised refugees in the Member State where they were recognised as refugees (in this case: Bulgaria) do not receive any subsistence benefits at all, or if those which they do receive are very limited by comparison with those available in other Member States, but if these refugees are otherwise not treated any differently from nationals of that Member State,

b) recognised refugees are, admittedly, formally treated in the same way as Member State's nationals with regard to the conditions relating to subsistence, but in fact have greater difficulty in accessing the related benefits and there is no integration programme appropriately tailored and addressing the special needs of the persons concerned such as to ensure de facto equal treatment to that of the Member State's nationals?

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: