Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
6 B 33/19, 6 B 33/19 (6 C 13/19) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2019:070819B6B33.19.0 Generato dall'IA

Review of state-funded master's program capacity caps in private cooperation agreements under the constitutional duty of capacity exhaustion

Numero d'incarto 6 B 33/19, 6 B 33/19 (6 C 13/19)
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 (6th Senate) granted the plaintiff's complaint against the non-admission of the appeal, permitting the revision on the grounds of the fundamental significance of the legal issue, thereby allowing the case to proceed to a full merits hearing. The dispute concerns the constitutional right to access university education and specifically challenges the statutory cap on study places for a state-funded master's program operated by a private educational institution under a cooperation agreement with a public university. The decisive legal question is whether the capacity-exhaustion requirement of the Basic Law (*Kapazitätserschöpfungsgebot*) mandates judicial review of the number of study places fixed by the Admission Regulations (*Zulassungszahlen-Verordnung*) when the program is delivered by a private partner without using the public university's own resources.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 52 Abs. 2 GKG, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 und 3, § 52 Abs. 2 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 2, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG; Review of state-funded master's program capacity caps in private cooperation agreements under the constitutional duty of capacity exhaustion: The dispute concerns the constitutional right to access university education and specifically challenges the statutory cap on study places for a state-funded master's program operated by a private educational institution under a cooperation agreement with a public university. The decisive legal question is whether the capacity-exhaustion requirement of the Basic Law (*Kapazitätserschöpfungsgebot*) mandates judicial review of the number of study places fixed by the Admission Regulations (*Zulassungszahlen-Verordnung*) when the program is delivered by a private partner without using the public university's own resources.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
istituto di diritto pubblico requisito costituzionale cooperazione giudiziaria godimento dei diritti civili sindacato giurisdizionale diritto alla formazione

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for admitting the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal issue.
§ 52 Abs. 2 GKG
1 und 3, § 52 Abs. 2 GKG; die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
2, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.
§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3, § 52 Abs. 2 GKG
Procedural rule determining the fixed court fees for the complaint procedure.
§ 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 2, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Procedural rule determining the provisional fixed court fees for the subsequent revision procedure.
Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 1278/13
Subsidiarity of constitutional review of interim admission orders and arbitrariness of cost waiver in capacity-restricted study programs
1 BvR 590/15
University capacity limits: admissibility of constitutional complaint against interim admission order where main proceedings remain available
6 CN 3/10
Constitutional validity of state regulation linking extracapacity study place allocation to intra-capacity selection criteria and study location choices
1 BvR 655/17, 1 BvR 656/17, 1 BvR 657/17
Conflict between concrete and abstract staffing principles in university capacity calculation under freedom of science
6 C 18/19
University capacity calculation for medical part-study places: validity of unadjusted service export figures, isolated preclinical curriculum allocation despite clinical norm-value excess, and exclusion of exam-passed full-study students from demand relief.

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Main ground for admitting the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal issue.

§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3, § 52 Abs. 2 GKG

Procedural rule determining the fixed court fees for the complaint procedure.

§ 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 2, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Procedural rule determining the provisional fixed court fees for the subsequent revision procedure.

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

Revisionszulassung wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache zum Kapazitätserschöpfungsgebot

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde der Klägerin gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision ist begründet. Die Rechtssache hat die geltend gemachte grundsätzliche Bedeutung im Sinne des § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO. Sie kann zur Klärung der Frage beitragen, ob und gegebenenfalls in welchem Umfang eine Überprüfung der in der Zulassungszahlen-Verordnung festgesetzten Zahl von Studienplätzen für einen mit staatlichen Mitteln finanzierten Masterstudiengang einer staatlichen Hochschule am Maßstab des verfassungsrechtlichen Gebots erschöpfender Kapazitätsauslastung erforderlich ist, wenn der Studiengang von einer Bildungseinrichtung in privater Trägerschaft ohne Inanspruchnahme von Kapazitäten der Hochschule auf der Grundlage eines Kooperationsvertrags durchgeführt wird, aus dem sich die Mindestzahl der Studienplätze dieses Studiengangs ergibt.

Die Streitwertfestsetzung für das Beschwerdeverfahren folgt aus § 47 Abs. 1 und 3, § 52 Abs. 2 GKG; die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 2, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.