Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
5 PB 17/18, 5 PB 17/18 (5 P 7/19) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2019:220219B5PB17.18.0 AI generated

Co-determination over external versus internal posting of vacant service positions under § 75(3) No. 14 BPersVG

Case Number 5 PB 17/18, 5 PB 17/18 (5 P 7/19)
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 (5th Senate) granted leave to appeal for the applicant’s legal complaint, ruling that the case raises a question of fundamental legal significance. The dispute concerns a challenge to a change in administrative practice by a department head, who switched from internally to externally advertising vacant service positions; the specific issue is whether this shift in posting method constitutes a decision subject to the joint-works-council’s co-determination rights under § 75(3) No. 14 of the Federal Personnel Representation Act (BPersVG). The Court found the complaint admissible under § 83(2) BPersVG in conjunction with § 72(2) No. 1 and § 92(1) sentence 2 of the German Labor Court Act (ArbGG), necessitating further review by the Senate to clarify the scope of the co-determination statute regarding the external vs. internal distinction in job advertising.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 92 Abs. 1 Satz 2 ArbGG, § 83 Abs. 2 BPersVG, § 72 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 ArbGG; Co-determination over external versus internal posting of vacant service positions under § 75(3) No. 14 BPersVG: The dispute concerns a challenge to a change in administrative practice by a department head, who switched from internally to externally advertising vacant service positions; the specific issue is whether this shift in posting method constitutes a decision subject to the joint-works-council’s co-determination rights under § 75(3) No. 14 of the Federal Personnel Representation Act (BPersVG). The Court found the complaint admissible under § 83(2) BPersVG in conjunction with § 72(2) No. 1 and § 92(1) sentence 2 of the German Labor Court Act (ArbGG), necessitating further review by the Senate to clarify the scope of the co-determination statute regarding the external vs. internal distinction in job advertising.

Keywords

AI generated
change of job challenge of administrative decisions administrative personnel legal representation specific fundamental rights ground for review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 92 Abs. 1 Satz 2 ArbGG
Procedural rule applied via reference for the formal requirements of the legal complaint.
§ 83 Abs. 2 BPersVG
Main ground for granting leave to appeal due to a question of fundamental legal significance.
§ 72 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 ArbGG
Procedural rule applied via reference for the requirements of legal complaint admission.
AI generated
5 P 3/22
External job advertisement as co-determination measure and scope of internal hiring priority in service agreements
6 PB 1/12
Staff council co-determination over waiver of public civil service vacancy announcements under § 75 Abs. 3 Nr. 14 BPersVG
5 P 7/19
Service-level co-determination scope: Exclusion of job advertisement publication modalities and candidate pool expansion from § 75(3)(14) BPersVG
6 P 10/09
Co-determination over waiver of public service post tender under § 75(3) No. 14 BPersVG
6 PB 36/13
Staff council co-determination to forgo job postings and recharacterization of fundamental legal challenge as divergence appeal

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 83 Abs. 2 BPersVG

Main ground for granting leave to appeal due to a question of fundamental legal significance.

§ 72 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 ArbGG

Procedural rule applied via reference for the requirements of legal complaint admission.

§ 92 Abs. 1 Satz 2 ArbGG

Procedural rule applied via reference for the formal requirements of the legal complaint.

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

Zulassung der Rechtsbeschwerde; Wechsel von interner zu externer Ausschreibung von Dienstposten

[GRUENDE]

Die Rechtsbeschwerde des Antragstellers ist gemäß § 83 Abs. 2 BPersVG i.V.m. § 72 Abs. 2 Nr. 1, § 92 Abs. 1 Satz 2 ArbGG wegen einer entscheidungserheblichen Rechtsfrage von grundsätzlicher Bedeutung zuzulassen.

Die vorliegende Rechtssache kann dem Senat Gelegenheit zur Klärung der Frage geben, ob der Mitbestimmungstatbestand des § 75 Abs. 3 Nr. 14 BPersVG auch erfüllt ist, wenn der Dienststellenleiter seine Verwaltungspraxis, zu besetzende Dienstposten zunächst intern auszuschreiben, ändert und Dienstposten, die besetzt werden sollen, extern ausschreibt.