Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
1 B 69/21, 1 B 69/21 (1 C 48/21) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2021:231121B1B69.21.0 AI generated

Admissibility of revision on whether a "strong presumption" links refusal of military service to EU persecution grounds for refugee status

Case Number 1 B 69/21, 1 B 69/21 (1 C 48/21)
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 set aside the appellate court's decision denying leave to appeal and admitted the revision, leaving the procedural outcome of the main asylum case pending for the appellate court to re-examine on the merits. The dispute concerned a refugee's claim for protection based on conscientious objection to military service, specifically challenging whether the rejection of the duty fulfilled the criteria for persecution under EU law. The court held that the question of what constitutes a "strong presumption" linking refusal of military service under specific political conditions to one of the persecution grounds listed in Article 10 of Directive 2011/95/EU, and the evidentiary weight of such a presumption in judicial fact-finding, is of fundamental legal significance under Section 132(2)(1) of the Administrative Court Rules of Procedure.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 3a Abs. 2 Nr. 5 AsylG, § 3b AsylG, § 108 Abs. 1 VwGO; Admissibility of revision on whether a "strong presumption" links refusal of military service to EU persecution grounds for refugee status: The dispute concerned a refugee's claim for protection based on conscientious objection to military service, specifically challenging whether the rejection of the duty fulfilled the criteria for persecution under EU law. The court held that the question of what constitutes a "strong presumption" linking refusal of military service under specific political conditions to one of the persecution grounds listed in Article 10 of Directive 2011/95/EU, and the evidentiary weight of such a presumption in judicial fact-finding, is of fundamental legal significance under Section 132(2)(1) of the Administrative Court Rules of Procedure.

Keywords

AI generated
revision of asylum decision persecution grounds for revision legal presumption conscientious objection refugee

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Provision cited as the main legal basis for admitting the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal issue.
§ 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 81/21, 1 B 81/21 (1 C 2/22)
Standard for "strong presumption" linking refusal of military service to persecution grounds under refugee law
1 B 44/21, 1 B 44/21 (1 C 37/21)
Admissibility of revision to define standards for the "strong presumption" linking refusal of military service to a persecution ground under the Qualification Directive
1 B 54/21, 1 B 54/21 (1 C 35/21)
Admission of revision on evidentiary weight of "strong presumption" for persecution nexus in refusal of military service
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 58/21, 1 B 58/21 (1 C 44/21)
Admissibility of revision to clarify evidentiary standard for "strong presumption" linking military service refusal in Syria to persecution under Directive 2011/95/EU

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Provision cited as the main legal basis for admitting the revision 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

Die Entscheidung des Oberverwaltungsgerichts Berlin-Brandenburg über die Nichtzulassung der Revision gegen sein Urteil vom 17. 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.