Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
5 PB 3/17, 5 PB 3/17 (5 P 3/18) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2018:300118B5PB3.17.0 Generato dall'IA

Relevance of immediate regulatory effect for statutory definition of administrative order under German public service law

Numero d'incarto 5 PB 3/17, 5 PB 3/17 (5 P 3/18)
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 permitted the legal appeal, ruling in favor of the applicant and establishing that the lower court's decision deviated from established case law. The dispute concerned the admissibility of a legal complaint in public service proceedings, specifically challenging the lower instance's refusal to apply the statutory definition of an administrative order because it required an immediate regulatory effect on employees. The decisive legal basis involved § 77 Nr. 1 of the Saxon Public Service Act (SächsPersVG) in conjunction with § 88 Abs. 2 SächsPersVG and relevant provisions of the Labor Court Act (ArbGG); the court determined that the characteristic of "immediacy" is no longer a relevant requirement for defining an administrative order under § 77, thereby correcting the lower court's deviation from the Federal Administrative Court's precedent.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 92a Satz 2 ArbGG; Relevance of immediate regulatory effect for statutory definition of administrative order under German public service law: The dispute concerned the admissibility of a legal complaint in public service proceedings, specifically challenging the lower instance's refusal to apply the statutory definition of an administrative order because it required an immediate regulatory effect on employees. The decisive legal basis involved § 77 Nr. 1 of the Saxon Public Service Act (SächsPersVG) in conjunction with § 88 Abs. 2 SächsPersVG and relevant provisions of the Labor Court Act (ArbGG); the court determined that the characteristic of "immediacy" is no longer a relevant requirement for defining an administrative order under § 77, thereby correcting the lower court's deviation from the Federal Administrative Court's precedent.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
servizio pubblico provvedimento amministrativo base legale applicabilità diretta diritto pubblico economico effetti della sentenza

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 92a Satz 2 ArbGG
1 Satz 1, § 92a Satz 2 ArbGG zuzulassen.
Generato dall'IA
5 PB 23/15
Distinction between administrative orders and specific directives under personnel representation law
5 PB 3/15, 5 PB 3/15 (5 P 3/15)
Definition of "service department" in public service disciplinary proceedings under § 91 Abs. 6 PersVG BB
2 BvR 2051/19
Beamtenrechtlicher Konkurrentenstreit: Anfechtbarkeit der Bindung an nicht-bestandskräftige Anerkennungsentscheidung bei Eilrechtsschutz
7 B 34/15
Relevance of underlying administrative act's legality to substituted performance validity in public service law
2 B 63/20
Verfrühte Entscheidung vor Ablauf der Äußerungsfrist als Gehörsverstoß bei dienstlicher Beurteilung abgeordneter Richter

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

Zulassung der Rechtsbeschwerde wegen Divergenz; Tatbestandsmerkmale einer Verwaltungsanordnung i.S.d. § 77 Nr. 1 PersVG SN

[GRUENDE]

Die Rechtsbeschwerde des Antragstellers ist gemäß § 88 Abs. 2 Satz 1 SächsPersVG i.V.m. § 72 Abs. 2 Nr. 2, § 72a Abs. 5 Satz 2, § 92 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 92a Satz 2 ArbGG zuzulassen. Der angefochtene Beschluss weicht mit der entscheidungstragenden Annahme, für die Erfüllung des Tatbestandes einer Verwaltungsanordnung im Sinne des § 77 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 SächsPersVG a.F. bzw. § 77 Nr. 1 SächsPersVG n.F. sei eine unmittelbar regelnde Wirkung in Bezug auf die Beschäftigten erforderlich, von dem in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts entwickelten und von der Beschwerde benannten Rechtssatz ab, dass das Merkmal der Unmittelbarkeit für das Vorliegen einer Verwaltungsanordnung nicht mehr erheblich ist (BVerwG, Beschluss vom 7. Februar 2012 - 6 P 26.10 - Buchholz 251.2 § 90 BlnPersVG Nr. 1 Rn. 18 m.w.N.).