Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 B 59/16, 1 B 59/16 (1 C 20/16) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2016:270616B1B59.16.0 Generato dall'IA

Relationship between § 26a and § 27a Asylum Act in the context of revision admissibility

Numero d'incarto 1 B 59/16, 1 B 59/16 (1 C 20/16)
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Accolto (Allowed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Administrative Court granted the appellants' leave to appeal, allowing their revision to proceed against the lower court's judgment, thereby permitting the plaintiffs to continue their challenge at the appellate level. The case involves an administrative law dispute concerning asylum law, specifically addressing a challenge by the applicants regarding the application or interpretation of statutory provisions for asylum seekers. The decisive legal basis for the decision is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, which allows for leave to appeal where the matter is of fundamental legal significance, focusing on the relationship and interplay between § 26a and § 27a of the Asylum Act (AsylG).

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 26a AsylG, § 27a AsylG; Relationship between § 26a and § 27a Asylum Act in the context of revision admissibility: The case involves an administrative law dispute concerning asylum law, specifically addressing a challenge by the applicants regarding the application or interpretation of statutory provisions for asylum seekers. The decisive legal basis for the decision is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, which allows for leave to appeal where the matter is of fundamental legal significance, focusing on the relationship and interplay between § 26a and § 27a of the Asylum Act (AsylG).

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
revisione in materia d'asilo domanda di revisione impugnazione di decisioni amministrative interpretazione del diritto base legale oggetto della lite

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
The legal basis cited in the dispositive for admitting the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question.
§ 26a AsylG
Sie kann dem Senat insbesondere Gelegenheit zur Klärung des Verhältnisses der Regelung des § 26a AsylG zu jener des § 27a AsylG geben.
§ 27a AsylG
Sie kann dem Senat insbesondere Gelegenheit zur Klärung des Verhältnisses der Regelung des § 26a AsylG zu jener des § 27a AsylG geben.
Generato dall'IA
1 B 58/16, 1 B 58/16 (1 C 18/16)
Admissibility of Revision: Interpreting Interplay Between §§ 26a and 27a AsylG
1 B 4/13
Befristung der Sperrwirkung einer Ausweisung: Voraussetzungen der Abweichung vom Ausreise-Erfordernis bei Asylberechtigten
1 B 59/17
Admissibility of revision appeal in asylum cases: Divergence and fundamental significance requirements for factual assessments of persecution risk
1 B 108/17, 1 PKH 62/17, 1 B 108/17, 1 PKH 62/17
Asylum: Admissibility of revision based on factual discrepancies between regional courts regarding threat of persecution for military service evasion
1 B 37/18
Admissibility of revision for fundamental importance: failure to distinguish legal question from factual assessment in asylum persecution ground

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

The legal basis cited in the dispositive for admitting the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Die Beschwerde der Kläger ist zulässig und begründet.

Die Revision ist wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO zuzulassen. Sie kann dem Senat insbesondere Gelegenheit zur Klärung des Verhältnisses der Regelung des § 26a AsylG zu jener des § 27a AsylG geben. Auf die von der Beschwerde weiter geltend gemachten Zulassungsgründe, die allerdings in Bezug auf die geltend gemachte Divergenz zum Beschluss des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts vom 23. Oktober 2015 - BVerwG 1 B 41.15 - nicht durchgreifen, kommt es danach nicht mehr an.