Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
1 B 59/16, 1 B 59/16 (1 C 20/16) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2016:270616B1B59.16.0 AI generated

Relationship between § 26a and § 27a Asylum Act in the context of revision admissibility

Case Number 1 B 59/16, 1 B 59/16 (1 C 20/16)
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Administrative Court granted the appellants' leave to appeal, allowing their revision to proceed against the lower court's judgment, thereby permitting the plaintiffs to continue their challenge at the appellate level. The case involves an administrative law dispute concerning asylum law, specifically addressing a challenge by the applicants regarding the application or interpretation of statutory provisions for asylum seekers. The decisive legal basis for the decision is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, which allows for leave to appeal where the matter is of fundamental legal significance, focusing on the relationship and interplay between § 26a and § 27a of the Asylum Act (AsylG).

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 26a AsylG, § 27a AsylG; Relationship between § 26a and § 27a Asylum Act in the context of revision admissibility: The case involves an administrative law dispute concerning asylum law, specifically addressing a challenge by the applicants regarding the application or interpretation of statutory provisions for asylum seekers. The decisive legal basis for the decision is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, which allows for leave to appeal where the matter is of fundamental legal significance, focusing on the relationship and interplay between § 26a and § 27a of the Asylum Act (AsylG).

Keywords

AI generated
revision of asylum decision application for revision challenge of administrative decisions interpretation of the law statutory basis matter in dispute

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
The legal basis cited in the dispositive for admitting the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question.
§ 26a AsylG
Sie kann dem Senat insbesondere Gelegenheit zur Klärung des Verhältnisses der Regelung des § 26a AsylG zu jener des § 27a AsylG geben.
§ 27a AsylG
Sie kann dem Senat insbesondere Gelegenheit zur Klärung des Verhältnisses der Regelung des § 26a AsylG zu jener des § 27a AsylG geben.
AI generated
1 B 58/16, 1 B 58/16 (1 C 18/16)
Admissibility of Revision: Interpreting Interplay Between §§ 26a and 27a AsylG
1 B 4/13
Befristung der Sperrwirkung einer Ausweisung: Voraussetzungen der Abweichung vom Ausreise-Erfordernis bei Asylberechtigten
1 B 59/17
Admissibility of revision appeal in asylum cases: Divergence and fundamental significance requirements for factual assessments of persecution risk
1 B 108/17, 1 PKH 62/17, 1 B 108/17, 1 PKH 62/17
Asylum: Admissibility of revision based on factual discrepancies between regional courts regarding threat of persecution for military service evasion
1 B 37/18
Admissibility of revision for fundamental importance: failure to distinguish legal question from factual assessment in asylum persecution ground

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

The legal basis cited in the dispositive for admitting the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Die Beschwerde der Kläger ist zulässig und begründet.

Die Revision ist wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO zuzulassen. Sie kann dem Senat insbesondere Gelegenheit zur Klärung des Verhältnisses der Regelung des § 26a AsylG zu jener des § 27a AsylG geben. Auf die von der Beschwerde weiter geltend gemachten Zulassungsgründe, die allerdings in Bezug auf die geltend gemachte Divergenz zum Beschluss des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts vom 23. Oktober 2015 - BVerwG 1 B 41.15 - nicht durchgreifen, kommt es danach nicht mehr an.