Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
2 B 22/18, 2 B 22/18 (2 C 38/18) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2018:221118B2B22.18.0 AI generated

Reimbursement of Bundeswehr training costs: liability of recognized conscientious objectors after premature termination of professional soldier service

Case Number 2 B 22/18, 2 B 22/18 (2 C 38/18)
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 (BVerwG) granted the plaintiff's complaint and permitted the revision appeal due to the fundamental significance of the legal questions involved, while provisionally setting the value in dispute for the upcoming proceedings. The case concerns a challenge by a recognized conscientious objector against the Federal Ministry of Defense's demand for the reimbursement of training costs, specifically for the specialized instruction as an air traffic control officer, following the early termination of his career as a professional soldier. The decisive legal basis for admitting the appeal is Section 132(2)(1) of the Administrative Court Rules of Procedure (VwGO), which allows revision where a case is of general significance, aiming to clarify the extent to which recognized conscientious objecters may be held liable for the reimbursement of training expenses after the premature end of their military service.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, Abs. 3 und § 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GKG, § 63 Abs. 1 i.V.m. § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 und § 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GKG; Reimbursement of Bundeswehr training costs: liability of recognized conscientious objectors after premature termination of professional soldier service: The case concerns a challenge by a recognized conscientious objector against the Federal Ministry of Defense's demand for the reimbursement of training costs, specifically for the specialized instruction as an air traffic control officer, following the early termination of his career as a professional soldier. The decisive legal basis for admitting the appeal is Section 132(2)(1) of the Administrative Court Rules of Procedure (VwGO), which allows revision where a case is of general significance, aiming to clarify the extent to which recognized conscientious objecters may be held liable for the reimbursement of training expenses after the premature end of their military service.

Keywords

AI generated
military service reimbursement of costs basis of liability defense costs in-service training termination of proceedings

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for the verdict, justifying the admissibility of the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal matter.
§ 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GKG
3 und § 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GKG.
§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, Abs. 3 und § 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GKG
Provisions used to determine the value in dispute for the complaint proceedings.
§ 63 Abs. 1 i.V.m. § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 und § 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GKG
Provisions used to provisionally set the value in dispute for the revision proceedings.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
BVerwGE 158, 364
AI generated
2 B 21/18, 2 B 21/18 (2 C 37/18)
Liability of recognized conscientious objectors for reimbursement of specialized military training costs following early termination of service
2 C 37/18
Reimbursement of military training costs by conscientious objector: limiting liability to retained economic advantage to protect freedom of conscience
2 B 44/18
Reimbursement of military training costs following conscientious objection: scope of advantage recapture and exclusion of service credit deduction
2 C 38/18
Recovery of military training costs from a conscientious objector: limitation to the realized professional benefit
6 B 17/14
Conscientious objection: Standard of proof for Gewissensentscheidung and admissibility of delayed application due to training-cost repayment under § 56 Abs. 4 SG

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Main ground for the verdict, justifying the admissibility of the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal matter.

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

Provisions used to determine the value in dispute for the complaint proceedings.

§ 63 Abs. 1 i.V.m. § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 und § 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GKG

Provisions used to provisionally set the value 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

Erstattung von Ausbildungskosten der Bundeswehr; Zulassung der Revision

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde des Klägers ist begründet. Die Revision wird wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO) zugelassen.

Das Revisionsverfahren kann dem Bundesverwaltungsgericht im Anschluss an die bereits vorliegende Rechtsprechung (vgl. insbesondere BVerwG, Beschluss vom 14. Mai 2014 - 2 B 96.13 - Buchholz 449 § 46 SG Nr. 22 und Urteile vom 28. Oktober 2015 - 2 C 40.13 - Buchholz 449 § 56 SG Nr. 4 sowie vom 12. April 2017 - 2 C 16.16 - BVerwGE 158, 364) Gelegenheit zur weiteren Klärung der Frage geben, in welchem Umfang anerkannte Kriegsdienstverweigerer nach vorzeitiger Beendigung des Berufssoldatenverhältnisses zur Erstattung von Ausbildungskosten (hier: Fachausbildung zum Flugsicherungskontrolloffizier) herangezogen werden dürfen.

Die Streitwertfestsetzung für das Beschwerdeverfahren folgt aus § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, Abs. 3 und § 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GKG. Die vorläufige Festsetzung des Streitwerts für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 63 Abs. 1 i.V.m. § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 und § 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GKG.