Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
1 B 54/21, 1 B 54/21 (1 C 35/21) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2021:021121B1B54.21.0 Generato dall'IA

Admission of revision on evidentiary weight of "strong presumption" for persecution nexus in refusal of military service

Numero d'incarto 1 B 54/21, 1 B 54/21 (1 C 35/21)
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 ordered the admission of the revision and quashed the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg’s decision refusing leave to appeal, granting the defendant-respondent a procedural victory in the appellate proceedings. The case concerns an asylum application where the applicant refused mandatory military service, and the core dispute centers on the evidentiary assessment of this refusal. The decisive legal issue is whether a "strong presumption" of a nexus between the refusal of military service and a persecution ground under Article 10 of Directive 2011/95/EU (implemented in § 3a Abs. 3 in conjunction with § 3b AsylG) exists, and what weight such a presumption carries within the framework of judicial conviction formation under § 108 Abs. 1 VwGO, referencing the criteria established by the ECJ in Case C-238/19.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 3a Abs. 2 Nr. 5 AsylG, § 3b AsylG, § 108 Abs. 1 VwGO; Admission of revision on evidentiary weight of "strong presumption" for persecution nexus in refusal of military service: The case concerns an asylum application where the applicant refused mandatory military service, and the core dispute centers on the evidentiary assessment of this refusal. The decisive legal issue is whether a "strong presumption" of a nexus between the refusal of military service and a persecution ground under Article 10 of Directive 2011/95/EU (implemented in § 3a Abs. 3 in conjunction with § 3b AsylG) exists, and what weight such a presumption carries within the framework of judicial conviction formation under § 108 Abs. 1 VwGO, referencing the criteria established by the ECJ in Case C-238/19.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
revisione in materia d'asilo persecuzione presunzione motivi di revisione ordinanze probatorie congedo per servizio militare

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Legal basis cited for the admission of the revision due to the fundamental significance of the matter.
§ 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.
Generato dall'IA
1 B 69/21, 1 B 69/21 (1 C 48/21)
Admissibility of revision on whether a "strong presumption" links refusal of military service to EU persecution grounds for refugee status
1 B 71/21, 1 B 71/21 (1 C 50/21)
Revision admission criteria for asylum claims based on refusal of military service and the evidentiary weight of a "strong presumption" of persecution under the Qualification Directive
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 82/21, 1 B 82/21 (1 C 3/22)
Admission of revision on evidentiary standards for "strong presumption" linking military service evasion to persecution under the Qualification Directive
1 B 51/21, 1 B 51/21 (1 C 34/21)
Refusal of military service: evidentiary requirements for a "strong presumption" of persecution and its weight in judicial fact-finding under the Qualification Directive

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Legal basis cited for the admission of the revision due to the fundamental significance of the matter.

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 des Oberverwaltungsgerichts Berlin-Brandenburg über die Nichtzulassung der Revision gegen sein Urteil vom 11. 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.