Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
2 B 76/14, 2 B 76/14 (2 C 30/15) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2015:171215B2B76.14.0 KI-generiert

Review of candidates' scientific works in university professorship appointment proceedings: Committee obligations and admissibility of appeal

Geschäftsnummer 2 B 76/14, 2 B 76/14 (2 C 30/15)
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Gutgeheissen (Allowed)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) granted leave for appeal to the applicant in a professorial appointment procedure, thereby allowing the case to proceed to full appellate review on the merits. The dispute concerned a candidate for a university professorship who challenged the appointment process, specifically focusing on whether the selection committee had properly evaluated the scientific works submitted by the applicant. The Court held that the issue of what obligations selection committees have to review and consider the scientific publications of candidates in professorial recruitment proceedings is of fundamental legal significance, warranting clarification by the full court under § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO. Consequently, the prior lower court decision was not affirmed or overturned on the merits by this interlocutory order, but the case was opened up for re-examination at the revision stage to address these procedural duties.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; Review of candidates' scientific works in university professorship appointment proceedings: Committee obligations and admissibility of appeal: The dispute concerned a candidate for a university professorship who challenged the appointment process, specifically focusing on whether the selection committee had properly evaluated the scientific works submitted by the applicant. The Court held that the issue of what obligations selection committees have to review and consider the scientific publications of candidates in professorial recruitment proceedings is of fundamental legal significance, warranting clarification by the full court under § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO. Consequently, the prior lower court decision was not affirmed or overturned on the merits by this interlocutory order, but the case was opened up for re-examination at the revision stage to address these procedural duties.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Revisionsverfahren materielle Beurteilung Ernennungsverfahren Verfahrenspflicht Zwischenentscheid offenes Verfahren

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
KI-generiert

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Ground for granting leave to appeal because the case is deemed to be of fundamental legal significance.

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

Wissenschaftliche Arbeiten von Bewerbern im professoralen Berufungsverfahren; Revisionszulassung

[GRUENDE]

Die Revision wird wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache zugelassen (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO). Das Revisionsverfahren erscheint geeignet zur Klärung beizutragen, welche Verpflichtungen Berufungskommissionen, die am Verfahren zur Vergabe des Amtes eines Professors an einer Universität beteiligt sind, hinsichtlich der Kenntnisnahme der von Bewerbern ausgearbeiteten wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten obliegen.