Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
5 B 40/16, 5 B 40/16 (5 C 36/16) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2016:281216B5B40.16.0 AI generated

Compliance of Child Maintenance Advance residence requirement with EU free movement law

Case Number 5 B 40/16, 5 B 40/16 (5 C 36/16)
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 restoration of the plaintiffs' procedural rights and permitted the revision appeal to proceed, holding that the appellate complaint was both admissible and well-founded. The dispute concerned a challenge to the admissibility of the residence requirement under Section 1(1) No. 2 of the Child Maintenance Advance Act, which restricts benefits for children of single parents to those residing in Germany. The court determined that the case possessed fundamental legal significance under Section 132(2) No. 1 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure, as it raised the critical question of whether the domestic residence condition is compatible with European Union law, specifically regarding the free movement of persons.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 60 VwGO, § 60 Abs. 2 Satz 1 Halbs. 2 VwGO, § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; Compliance of Child Maintenance Advance residence requirement with EU free movement law: The dispute concerned a challenge to the admissibility of the residence requirement under Section 1(1) No. 2 of the Child Maintenance Advance Act, which restricts benefits for children of single parents to those residing in Germany. The court determined that the case possessed fundamental legal significance under Section 132(2) No. 1 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure, as it raised the critical question of whether the domestic residence condition is compatible with European Union law, specifically regarding the free movement of persons.

Keywords

AI generated
residence requirement child maintenance obligation children's rights Single European Act administrative compliance relocation of child residence

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 60 VwGO
Legal basis cited in the first order for granting the plaintiffs restoration to the former state (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand).
§ 60 Abs. 2 Satz 1 Halbs. 2 VwGO
Juni 2015 (Eingang) und damit fristgerecht nach § 60 Abs. 2 Satz 1 Halbs. 2 VwGO Beschwerde gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision eingelegt, diese begründet und Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand beantragt.
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Legal basis cited in the second order for admitting the revision appeal due to the fundamental significance of the legal issue.
AI generated
5 C 36/16
Exclusion of domestic residence requirement in maintenance advance benefits due to conflict with EU worker free movement
5 B 20/21
Formal requirements for valid application of child maintenance advance and duty of ex officio inquiry under Child Maintenance Advance Act
III B 7/18
Eligibility for domestic child benefits under § 62 EStG: Determination of domestic residence or habitual abode after relocation abroad
1 C 15/12
Residence Permit for Patchwork Family Father: Extraordinary Hardship Threshold and EU Citizenship Dependence
III R 46/14
Fictitious transfer of residence under EU social security coordination rules determining priority entitlement to German child benefit

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 60 VwGO

Legal basis cited in the first order for granting the plaintiffs restoration to the former state (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand).

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Legal basis cited in the second order for admitting the revision appeal due to the fundamental significance of the legal issue.

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

Revisionszulassung; Vereinbarkeit des Wohnsitzerfordernisses in § 1 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 UhVorschG mit europäischem Recht

[GRUENDE]

1. Den Klägern ist nach § 60 VwGO Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand zu gewähren. Wegen ihrer wirtschaftlichen Verhältnisse waren sie ohne Verschulden verhindert, eine Beschwerde gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision rechtzeitig durch einen Rechtsanwalt einzulegen. Nachdem ihnen durch Beschluss des Senats vom 23. Mai 2016 - 5 PKH 24.15 - (zugestellt am 27. Mai 2016) Prozesskostenhilfe bewilligt und ein Rechtsanwalt beigeordnet worden ist, haben sie durch diesen am 7. Juni 2015 (Eingang) und damit fristgerecht nach § 60 Abs. 2 Satz 1 Halbs. 2 VwGO Beschwerde gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision eingelegt, diese begründet und Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand beantragt.

2. Die Beschwerde der Kläger ist zulässig und begründet. Die Revision ist nach § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache zuzulassen. Die Revision kann dem Senat insbesondere Gelegenheit zur Klärung der Frage geben, ob das Wohnsitzerfordernis in § 1 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 des Gesetzes zur Sicherung des Unterhalts von Kindern alleinstehender Mütter und Väter durch Unterhaltsvorschüsse oder Unterhaltsausfallleistungen (Unterhaltsvorschussgesetz - UVG) mit dem Recht der Europäischen Union vereinbar ist.