Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
3 B 44/16, 3 B 44/16 (3 C 27/17) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2017:271117B3B44.16.0 AI generated

Standing to challenge renewed selection decision by non-litigant in initial procedure under Bodenabfertigungsdienst-Verordnung

Case Number 3 B 44/16, 3 B 44/16 (3 C 27/17)
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 appeals and admitted the revision for review, ruling that the case possesses fundamental significance. The dispute concerns a candidate who failed in a ground handling service selection procedure and challenged a renewed selection decision favoring a rival candidate, having previously omitted to file a direct lawsuit against the initial, judicially annulled selection decision. The court identified the decisive legal issue as the extent to which a non-litigant from the initial procedure retains standing to sue the subsequent selection decision, grounded in Article 132(2) No. 1 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO) regarding the requirement of fundamental significance for revision.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 und 3, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG; Standing to challenge renewed selection decision by non-litigant in initial procedure under Bodenabfertigungsdienst-Verordnung: The dispute concerns a candidate who failed in a ground handling service selection procedure and challenged a renewed selection decision favoring a rival candidate, having previously omitted to file a direct lawsuit against the initial, judicially annulled selection decision. The court identified the decisive legal issue as the extent to which a non-litigant from the initial procedure retains standing to sue the subsequent selection decision, grounded in Article 132(2) No. 1 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO) regarding the requirement of fundamental significance for revision.

Keywords

AI generated
standing to appeal challenge of administrative decisions selection criteria grounds for revision procedural rights article of civil procedure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Cited as the basis for granting the appeal due to the fundamental significance of the case, allowing the revision to proceed.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.
§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Cited as the legal basis for the preliminary determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.
AI generated
2 C 1/18
Beamtenrechtliche Auswahlentscheidung: Aktualitätsanforderungen an Regel- versus Anlassbeurteilungen bei Wechsel der Tätigkeit innerhalb desselben Statusamts
2 BvR 764/11
Beamtenrechtlicher Konkurrentenstreit: Keine schematische Bevorzugung des höheren Statusamts; Kompensierbarkeit des Statusrückstands durch leistungsbezogene Kriterien
2 B 50/17, 2 B 50/17 (2 C 2/18)
Requirement for additional performance appraisal upon significant change in duties to ensure current comparison in selection decisions
2 B 39/19
Damages for violation of statutory selection procedure in public service promotion: fault requirements and forfeiture limits in German administrative law
5 B 15/11
Admission of revision for fundamental significance of resuming administrative compensation proceedings after jurisprudential change

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Cited as the basis for granting the appeal due to the fundamental significance of the case, allowing the revision to proceed.

§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Cited as the legal basis for the preliminary determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.

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; Auswahlverfahren; Klage eines Mitbewerber

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerden haben Erfolg. Der Rechtssache kommt die geltend gemachte grundsätzliche Bedeutung (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO) zu. Die Revision wird dem Bundesverwaltungsgericht voraussichtlich Gelegenheit geben, unter anderem die Frage zu klären, inwieweit der Teilnehmer an einem Auswahlverfahren nach der Bodenabfertigungsdienst-Verordnung, der gegen die Auswahlentscheidung zugunsten eines Mitbewerbers nicht geklagt hat, nach der gerichtlichen Aufhebung dieser Entscheidung auf die Klage eines anderen Bewerbers gegen die daraufhin ergangene erneute Auswahlentscheidung Klage erheben kann.

Die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1 und 3, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.