Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
2 B 7/22, 2 B 7/22 (2 C 21/23) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2023:151223B2B7.22.0 Generato dall'IA

Dismissal of probationary civil servant for insufficient personal character suitability: admission of revision on fundamental legal significance

Numero d'incarto 2 B 7/22, 2 B 7/22 (2 C 21/23)
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Accolto (Allowed)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Administrative Court ordered the admission of the plaintiff's appeal (Revision), thereby overturning the higher regional court's decision to refuse admission and allowing the case to proceed to the highest administrative court for a full hearing on the merits. The dispute concerns the dismissal of a probationary civil servant due to a lack of successful probation (*fehlende Bewährung*), specifically challenging whether the finding of insufficient "personal character suitability" (*charakterliche Eignung*) constitutes sufficient grounds for termination under German service law. The decisive legal basis for this procedural ruling is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, which mandates the admission of an appeal when the case has fundamental legal significance, while the substantive matter under review involves the interpretation of § 34 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 2 in conjunction with § 11 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 2 BBG regarding the requirements for dismissing probationary officers.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 52 Abs. 6 Satz 1 Nr. 2 GKG, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 40 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG; Dismissal of probationary civil servant for insufficient personal character suitability: admission of revision on fundamental legal significance: The dispute concerns the dismissal of a probationary civil servant due to a lack of successful probation (*fehlende Bewährung*), specifically challenging whether the finding of insufficient "personal character suitability" (*charakterliche Eignung*) constitutes sufficient grounds for termination under German service law. The decisive legal basis for this procedural ruling is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, which mandates the admission of an appeal when the case has fundamental legal significance, while the substantive matter under review involves the interpretation of § 34 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 2 in conjunction with § 11 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 2 BBG regarding the requirements for dismissing probationary officers.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
licenziamento del pubblico dipendente motivi di revisione presupposti materiali controllo della procedura determinazione del valore litigioso esame nel merito

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Serves as the main ground for admitting the appeal due to the fundamental significance of the legal issue.
§ 52 Abs. 6 Satz 1 Nr. 2 GKG
Specific valuation rule cited for determining the subject matter value.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Basis for the determination of the subject matter value for the appellate proceedings.
§ 40 GKG
Procedural provision cited for the calculation of the subject matter value.
§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Procedural provision cited for the calculation of the subject matter value.
Generato dall'IA

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Serves as the main ground for admitting the appeal due to the fundamental significance of the legal issue.

§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Basis for the determination of the subject matter value for the appellate proceedings.

§ 40 GKG

Procedural provision cited for the calculation of the subject matter value.

§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Procedural provision cited for the calculation of the subject matter value.

§ 52 Abs. 6 Satz 1 Nr. 2 GKG

Specific valuation rule cited for determining the subject matter value.

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; Begriff der charakterlichen Eignung

[TENOR]

Die Entscheidung über die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des Oberverwaltungsgerichts für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen vom 10. Dezember 2021 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 Revisionsverfahren vorläufig auf 34 799,76 € festgesetzt.

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision ist zulässig und begründet. Die Revision ist wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache zuzulassen (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO).

Das Revisionsverfahren kann dem Bundesverwaltungsgericht Gelegenheit zur weiteren Klärung der Frage bieten, unter welchen Voraussetzungen ein Beamter auf Probe wegen fehlender Bewährung nach § 34 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 2 i. V. m. § 11 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 2 BBG, insbesondere im Hinblick auf den Gesichtspunkt seiner mangelnden charakterlichen Eignung, entlassen werden kann.

Die Festsetzung des Streitwerts beruht auf § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1, §§ 40, 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 sowie § 52 Abs. 6 Satz 1 Nr. 2 GKG.