Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
XIII ZB 51/21 ECLI:DE:BGH:2025:160625BXIIIZB51.21.0 KI-generiert

Deportation enforcement: non-service to legal representative and celerity in travel document acquisition

Geschäftsnummer XIII ZB 51/21
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 Justice (BGH) dismissed the legal complaint, leaving the Landgericht's decision in force and placing the costs on the affected person. This decision concerned a family court enforcement proceeding regarding a detention or deportation measure, where the challenger argued a procedural defect due to the failure to serve the legal representative with the notice of appeal and a violation of the principle of celerity, claiming the authorities delayed organization of flight bookings and the issuance of a substitute travel document until after the individual's arrest. The court held that the complaint was unfounded because the lack of service to the representative was not properly raised as a ground for complaint, and the delay did not constitute a breach of the duty to expedite proceedings, as the responsibility for organizing the flight and securing the travel document within the specific timeframe fell within the operational discretion of the involved authority, which had attempted to enforce the measure prior to the final arrest. The ruling relies on §§ 74(7) FamFG and established BGH case law regarding procedural requirements in enforcement matters and the limits of the celerity principle in cross-border detention and deportation logistics.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 74 Abs. 7 FamFG; Deportation enforcement: non-service to legal representative and celerity in travel document acquisition: This decision concerned a family court enforcement proceeding regarding a detention or deportation measure, where the challenger argued a procedural defect due to the failure to serve the legal representative with the notice of appeal and a violation of the principle of celerity, claiming the authorities delayed organization of flight bookings and the issuance of a substitute travel document until after the individual's arrest. The court held that the complaint was unfounded because the lack of service to the representative was not properly raised as a ground for complaint, and the delay did not constitute a breach of the duty to expedite proceedings, as the responsibility for organizing the flight and securing the travel document within the specific timeframe fell within the operational discretion of the involved authority, which had attempted to enforce the measure prior to the final arrest. The ruling relies on §§ 74(7) FamFG and established BGH case law regarding procedural requirements in enforcement matters and the limits of the celerity principle in cross-border detention and deportation logistics.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Reisedokumente Vollstreckungsverfahren Familienwegweisung Ersatzmassnahmen für Haft Verfahrensverzögerungen Pflichtverletzung

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 74 Abs. 7 FamFG
Cited in the dispositive to justify the waiver of a further detailed written reasoning for the dismissal of the legal complaint.

Zitierte Rechtsprechung

KI-generiert
XIII ZB 98/19
Transfer detention: waiver of the right to counsel participation in the first-instance hearing bars procedural challenge on appeal
XIII ZB 74/20
Deportation detention: Fair hearing rights and requirement for preliminary detention when counsel is unavailable
XIII ZB 23/22
Organizational discretion of immigration authorities in choosing deportation flights vs. acceleration requirement in deportation detention
XIII ZB 79/20
Legal aid application mooted by cost recovery from public entity in detention order proceedings
XIII ZB 4/20
Admissibility of detention application and waiver of renewed personal hearing in deportation detention involving asylum sequel applications
XIII ZB 93/22
Sufficiency of detention application brief for securing deportation under § 417 FamFG
KI-generiert
XIII ZB 5/22
Detention pending deportation: sufficiency of application grounds and compliance with the celerity principle
XIII ZB 46/20
Deportation detention extension: attribution of document-acquisition delay and duty to invite counsel from prior proceedings
XIII ZB 12/25
Suspension of deportation detention for violation of the principle of expedited proceedings due to administrative delay in issuing replacement travel documents
XIII ZB 29/22
Deportation detention extension validity and celerity principle where logistical delays made earlier release objectively impossible
XIII ZB 89/22
Deportation detention: Justification of procedural delays and hearing requirements under FamFG

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 74 Abs. 7 FamFG

Cited in the dispositive to justify the waiver of a further detailed written reasoning for the dismissal of the legal complaint.

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 5. Zivilkammer - Beschwerdekammer - des Landgerichts Darmstadt vom 23. August 2021 wird auf Kosten des Betroffenen zurückgewiesen.

Der Gegenstandswert des Rechtsbeschwerdeverfahrens beträgt 5.000 €.

[GRUENDE]

Die zulässige Rechtsbeschwerde ist unbegründet, weil die mangelnde Ladung des Verfahrenspflegers im Beschwerdeverfahren nicht gerügt worden ist (vgl. BGH, Beschlüsse vom 20. Juli 2021 - XIII ZB 98/19, juris Rn. 10 bis 12; vom 22. Februar 2022 - XIII ZB 74/20, InfAuslR 2022, 331 Rn. 17 mwN) und kein Verstoß gegen das Beschleunigungsgebot darin liegt, dass die beteiligte Behörde, in deren organisatorischen Spielraum es gelegen hätte, die Flugbuchung und das für das konkrete Flugdatum zu beschaffende Passersatzpapier erst nach erfolgter Festnahme des Betroffenen zu organisieren, versucht hat, ihn bereits vorher durch eine Einzelmaßnahme abzuschieben (vgl. zum Beschleunigungsgebot BGH, Beschlüsse vom 17. September 2024 - XIII ZB 23/22, juris Rn. 13, 16; vom 2. August 2022 - XIII ZB 79/20, juris Rn. 9; zur Beschaffung von Passersatzpapieren BGH, Beschlüsse vom 25. Oktober 2022 - XIII ZB 4/20, juris Rn. 8; vom 5. Dezember 2023 - XIII ZB 93/22, juris Rn. 10). Von einer weiteren Begründung wird gemäß § 74 Abs. 7 FamFG abgesehen.

Roloff Tolkmitt Vogt-Beheim

Holzinger Kochendörfer