Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
XIII ZB 90/20 ECLI:DE:BGH:2024:300124BXIIIZB90.20.0 KI-generiert

Validity of deportation detention order without prognosis of timely execution if deportation occurs within the ordered period

Geschäftsnummer XIII ZB 90/20
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Kostenauflage zulasten Beschwerdeführer/in
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The German Federal Court of Civil Procedure (BGH) dismissed the legal complaint, leaving the lower court's detention order in force, with costs awarded to the affected individual. The dispute concerned a challenge to the legality of a custodial detention order for deportation, specifically arguing that the order was unlawful due to the lower court's failure to perform the required prognosis on whether deportation could be executed within the specified detention period. The court held that such an omission does not render the detention order unlawful if the individual is actually deported within the ordered detention period, relying on established BGH jurisprudence. The decision is grounded in the procedural rules for family and non-contentious matters, specifically § 74 Abs. 7 FamFG, regarding the waiver of further reasoning, and cites prior BGH decisions on the requirements for deportation detention orders.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 74 Abs. 7 FamFG; Validity of deportation detention order without prognosis of timely execution if deportation occurs within the ordered period: The dispute concerned a challenge to the legality of a custodial detention order for deportation, specifically arguing that the order was unlawful due to the lower court's failure to perform the required prognosis on whether deportation could be executed within the specified detention period. The court held that such an omission does not render the detention order unlawful if the individual is actually deported within the ordered detention period, relying on established BGH jurisprudence. The decision is grounded in the procedural rules for family and non-contentious matters, specifically § 74 Abs. 7 FamFG, regarding the waiver of further reasoning, and cites prior BGH decisions on the requirements for deportation detention orders.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Familienwegweisung strafprozessuale Haft prozessleitende Verfügungen Gültigkeitserfordernis Verweisungsbruch Abschiebung

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 74 Abs. 7 FamFG
Cited in the dispositive to justify the waiver of further reasoning.

Zitierte Rechtsprechung

KI-generiert
V ZB 29/10
Deportation detention despite temporary admission and marital intention: sufficiency of suspicion to evade removal and validity of conditional tolerance
V ZB 226/10
Detention to Secure Deportation: Requirements for Prosecutor Consent and Factual Findings on Detention Grounds
XIII ZB 38/19
Februar 2020 - XIII ZB 38/19, juris Rn.
KI-generiert
V ZB 265/10
Deportation detention: mandatory feasibility prognosis within the ordered period under § 62 Abs. 2 Satz 4 AufenthG
V ZB 15/17
Validity of deportation detention based on evasion of scheduled removal despite lapse of illegal entry causality
XIII ZB 24/21
Sufficiency of judicial prognosis in deportation detention orders and cure of defects through subsequent removal
XIII ZB 61/21
Validity of public service for deportation orders at unknown addresses and sufficiency of specific deadlines in detention for deportation applications
V ZB 171/18
Deportation detention: Defect in justification of necessary duration invalidates detention order

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 74 Abs. 7 FamFG

Cited in the dispositive to justify the waiver of further reasoning.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

Die Rechtsbeschwerde gegen den Beschluss der 12. Zivilkammer des Landgerichts Duisburg vom 20. November 2020 wird auf Kosten des Betroffenen zurückgewiesen.

In der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs ist geklärt, dass ein (etwaiges) Unterlassen der gebotenen Prognose, ob die Abschiebung innerhalb des beantragten Haftzeitraums gelingen kann, nicht zur Rechtswidrigkeit der Haftanordnung führt, wenn es - wie vorliegend - noch in der angeordneten Haftzeit zur Abschiebung des Betroffenen kommt (vgl. BGH, Beschlüsse vom 22. Juli 2010 - V ZB 29/10, InfAuslR 2011, 27 Rn. 24; vom 20. Januar 2011 - V ZB 226/10, FGPrax 2011, 144 Rn. 19; vom 12. Februar 2020 - XIII ZB 38/19, juris Rn. 15).

Von einer weiteren Begründung wird gemäß § 74 Abs. 7 FamFG abgesehen.

Der Gegenstandswert des Rechtsbeschwerdeverfahrens beträgt 5.000 €.

Kirchhoff

Roloff

Tolkmitt

Picker

Holzinger