Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 B 31/20, 2 B 31/20 (2 C 23/20) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2020:280720B2B31.20.0 Generato dall'IA

Compensatory leave for designated rest periods in police deployment schedules: characterization as working time under federal civil service law and EU excessive working hours rules

Numero d'incarto 2 B 31/20, 2 B 31/20 (2 C 23/20)
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 quashed the Higher Administrative Court’s decision to deny leave to appeal and admitted the plaintiff's constitutional complaint for appeal, ordering that costs follow the main proceedings and setting the value in dispute at €2,138.40. The case involves a dispute over whether designated "rest periods" within police operational orders and duty schedules for a large-scale deployment constitute working time entitling officers to compensatory leave (Freizeitausgleich) or overtime pay, specifically concerning a unit deployed at a major international summit and conference. The Court based its decision on § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, finding that the legal question regarding the conditions for granting compensatory leave for rest times under the framework of additional work duties (§ 88 Satz 2 BBG) and EU law on excessive working hours is of fundamental significance for the further development of case law.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GKG, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, Abs. 3 und § 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GKG; Compensatory leave for designated rest periods in police deployment schedules: characterization as working time under federal civil service law and EU excessive working hours rules: The case involves a dispute over whether designated "rest periods" within police operational orders and duty schedules for a large-scale deployment constitute working time entitling officers to compensatory leave (Freizeitausgleich) or overtime pay, specifically concerning a unit deployed at a major international summit and conference. The Court based its decision on § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, finding that the legal question regarding the conditions for granting compensatory leave for rest times under the framework of additional work duties (§ 88 Satz 2 BBG) and EU law on excessive working hours is of fundamental significance for the further development of case law.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
durata del riposo agenti di polizia lavoro straordinario riposo compensativo condizioni di lavoro funzione pubblica

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for the verdict, cited in the first numbered order to admit the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal issue.
§ 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GKG
3 und § 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GKG sowie hinsichtlich der vorläufigen Festsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren auf § 63 Abs.
§ 63 Abs. 1 GKG
Procedural basis cited in the fourth numbered order for the provisional determination of the value in dispute for the revision proceedings.
§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, Abs. 3 und § 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GKG
Procedural basis cited in the fourth numbered order for the definitive determination of the value in dispute for the appeal proceedings.
Generato dall'IA
2 B 62/20, 2 B 62/20 (2 C 33/20)
Police operational time: whether scheduled rest periods in large-scale deployments qualify as compensable working hours under federal civil service law
2 B 60/20, 2 B 60/20 (2 C 32/20)
Compensatory leave for scheduled rest periods in police deployment orders and classification as excess working time under public service law
2 B 30/20, 2 B 30/20 (2 C 22/20)
Compensatory time off for scheduled rest periods in major police operations: qualification as additional service time under federal service law and EU excess working time limits
2 B 27/20, 2 B 27/20 (2 C 19/20)
Compensatory time off for police rest periods in large-scale deployments under mandatory overtime and EU excessive work rules
2 B 26/20, 2 B 26/20 (2 C 18/20)
Police duty periods as "rest time": Admissibility of revision on the legal definition of working time and EU excessive working limits for compensatory leave

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Main ground for the verdict, cited in the first numbered order to admit the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal issue.

§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, Abs. 3 und § 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GKG

Procedural basis cited in the fourth numbered order for the definitive determination of the value in dispute for the appeal proceedings.

§ 63 Abs. 1 GKG

Procedural basis cited in the fourth numbered order for the provisional determination of the value in dispute for the revision proceedings.

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 Entscheidung über die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des Oberverwaltungsgerichts für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen vom 13. Februar 2020 wird aufgehoben.

Die Revision wird zugelassen.

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

Der Wert des Streitgegenstandes wird für das Beschwerdeverfahren und - insoweit vorläufig - für das Revisionsverfahren auf 2 138,40 € festgesetzt.

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde der Beklagten ist begründet. Die Revision ist wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache zuzulassen (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO). Das Revisionsverfahren kann dem Bundesverwaltungsgericht Gelegenheit geben zur (weiteren) rechtsgrundsätzlichen Klärung der Voraussetzungen für die Gewährung von Freizeitausgleich für in den Einsatzbefehlen und Dienstplänen eines polizeilichen Großeinsatzes vorgesehene "Ruhezeiten" als Einsatzzeiten, insbesondere unter den Gesichtspunkten der Anordnung von Mehrarbeit (§ 88 Satz 2 BBG) und der unionsrechtlichen Zuvielarbeit (hier: betreffend eine Beweissicherungs- und Festnahmehundertschaft von Polizeivollzugsbeamten beim G7-Gipfel in Elmau und bei der sog. Bilderberg-Konferenz im Jahr 2015).

Die Festsetzung des Werts des Streitgegenstandes für das Beschwerdeverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, Abs. 3 und § 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GKG sowie hinsichtlich der vorläufigen Festsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren auf § 63 Abs. 1 GKG i.V.m. den vorgenannten Vorschriften; der festgesetzte Betrag entspricht dem Umfang des noch begehrten Freizeitausgleichs in Höhe von 110 Stunden auf der Grundlage der im streitgegenständlichen Zeitraum für einen Beamten der Besoldungsgruppe A 9 maßgeblichen Mehrarbeitsvergütung (§ 4 Abs. 1 Nr. 3 BMVergV i.d.F. vom 25. November 2014) von 19,44 €.