Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
1 B 54/21, 1 B 54/21 (1 C 35/21) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2021:021121B1B54.21.0 AI generated

Admission of revision on evidentiary weight of "strong presumption" for persecution nexus in refusal of military service

Case Number 1 B 54/21, 1 B 54/21 (1 C 35/21)
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 ordered the admission of the revision and quashed the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg’s decision refusing leave to appeal, granting the defendant-respondent a procedural victory in the appellate proceedings. The case concerns an asylum application where the applicant refused mandatory military service, and the core dispute centers on the evidentiary assessment of this refusal. The decisive legal issue is whether a "strong presumption" of a nexus between the refusal of military service and a persecution ground under Article 10 of Directive 2011/95/EU (implemented in § 3a Abs. 3 in conjunction with § 3b AsylG) exists, and what weight such a presumption carries within the framework of judicial conviction formation under § 108 Abs. 1 VwGO, referencing the criteria established by the ECJ in Case C-238/19.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 3a Abs. 2 Nr. 5 AsylG, § 3b AsylG, § 108 Abs. 1 VwGO; Admission of revision on evidentiary weight of "strong presumption" for persecution nexus in refusal of military service: The case concerns an asylum application where the applicant refused mandatory military service, and the core dispute centers on the evidentiary assessment of this refusal. The decisive legal issue is whether a "strong presumption" of a nexus between the refusal of military service and a persecution ground under Article 10 of Directive 2011/95/EU (implemented in § 3a Abs. 3 in conjunction with § 3b AsylG) exists, and what weight such a presumption carries within the framework of judicial conviction formation under § 108 Abs. 1 VwGO, referencing the criteria established by the ECJ in Case C-238/19.

Keywords

AI generated
revision of asylum decision persecution legal presumption grounds for revision evidentiary orders leave for military service

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Legal basis cited for the admission of the revision due to the fundamental significance of the matter.
§ 3a Abs. 2 Nr. 5 AsylG
e der Richtlinie 2011/95/EU (§ 3a Abs. 2 Nr. 5 AsylG) genannten Voraussetzungen mit einem der in Art.
§ 3b AsylG
§ 3b AsylG) genannten Verfolgungsgründe - sowie deren Widerlegung - zu stellen sind und welche Bedeutung einer solchen "starken Vermutung" im Rahmen der richterlichen Überzeugungsbildung (§ 108 Abs.
§ 108 Abs. 1 VwGO
§ 3b AsylG) genannten Verfolgungsgründe - sowie deren Widerlegung - zu stellen sind und welche Bedeutung einer solchen "starken Vermutung" im Rahmen der richterlichen Überzeugungsbildung (§ 108 Abs. 1 VwGO) zukommt.
AI generated
1 B 69/21, 1 B 69/21 (1 C 48/21)
Admissibility of revision on whether a "strong presumption" links refusal of military service to EU persecution grounds for refugee status
1 B 71/21, 1 B 71/21 (1 C 50/21)
Revision admission criteria for asylum claims based on refusal of military service and the evidentiary weight of a "strong presumption" of persecution under the Qualification Directive
1 B 77/21, 1 B 77/21 (1 C 55/21)
Admissibility of revision for clarifying the evidentiary weight of the "strong presumption" linking military service refusal to persecution under the Qualification Directive
1 B 82/21, 1 B 82/21 (1 C 3/22)
Admission of revision on evidentiary standards for "strong presumption" linking military service evasion to persecution under the Qualification Directive
1 B 51/21, 1 B 51/21 (1 C 34/21)
Refusal of military service: evidentiary requirements for a "strong presumption" of persecution and its weight in judicial fact-finding under the Qualification Directive

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Legal basis cited for the admission of the revision due to the fundamental significance of the matter.

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 Entscheidung des Oberverwaltungsgerichts Berlin-Brandenburg über die Nichtzulassung der Revision gegen sein Urteil vom 11. Mai 2021 wird aufgehoben.

Die Revision wird zugelassen.

Die Entscheidung über die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens folgt der Kostenentscheidung in der Hauptsache.

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde der Beklagten ist zulässig und begründet.

Die Revision ist wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO zuzulassen. Sie kann dem Senat insgesamt Gelegenheit zur Klärung der Frage geben, welche Anforderungen an die Annahme einer "starken Vermutung" (EuGH, Urteil vom 19. November 2020 - C-238/19 [ECLI:EU:C:2020:945] - Rn. 57) für eine Verknüpfung zwischen der Verweigerung des Militärdienstes unter den in Art. 9 Abs. 2 Buchst. e der Richtlinie 2011/95/EU (§ 3a Abs. 2 Nr. 5 AsylG) genannten Voraussetzungen mit einem der in Art. 10 der Richtlinie 2011/95/EU (§ 3a Abs. 3 i.V.m. § 3b AsylG) genannten Verfolgungsgründe - sowie deren Widerlegung - zu stellen sind und welche Bedeutung einer solchen "starken Vermutung" im Rahmen der richterlichen Überzeugungsbildung (§ 108 Abs. 1 VwGO) zukommt.