Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
2 B 33/15, 2 B 33/15 (2 C 19/15) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2015:040915B2B33.15.0 AI generated

Leave to file appeal on points of law granted due to divergence from Federal Constitutional Court precedent on civil service maximum age limits

Case Number 2 B 33/15, 2 B 33/15 (2 C 19/15)
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Administrative Court granted leave to file an appeal on points of law (Revisionszulassung) in favor of the plaintiff, allowing the case to proceed to the highest administrative instance despite the lower court's rejection of her appeal. The dispute concerns the legality of maximum age limits for civil service appointments (Einstellungshöchstaltersgrenzen) in the public sector. The appellate court's decision to admit the appeal is based on § 132(2) No. 2 VwGO, as the lower court's ruling diverges from the subsequently issued constitutional interpretation of the Federal Constitutional Court dated April 21, 2015, which established new standards for reviewing such age restrictions.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO, § 71 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 52 Abs. 5 Satz 1 Nr. 2 GKG, § 52 Abs. 6 Satz 1 Nr. 2 GKG, §§ 40, 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 und Abs. 3, § 52 Abs. 5 Satz 1 Nr. 2 GKG, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 i.V.m. § 52 Abs. 6 Satz 1 Nr. 2 GKG; Leave to file appeal on points of law granted due to divergence from Federal Constitutional Court precedent on civil service maximum age limits: The dispute concerns the legality of maximum age limits for civil service appointments (Einstellungshöchstaltersgrenzen) in the public sector. The appellate court's decision to admit the appeal is based on § 132(2) No. 2 VwGO, as the lower court's ruling diverges from the subsequently issued constitutional interpretation of the Federal Constitutional Court dated April 21, 2015, which established new standards for reviewing such age restrictions.

Keywords

AI generated
constitutional limits civil service procedural rules administrative complaint interpretation of the law rule of law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO
Main ground for granting leave to file an appeal on points of law due to a divergence between the lower court's decision and a subsequent ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court.
§ 71 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Procedural rule applied to determine the court fees for the complaint procedure.
§ 52 Abs. 5 Satz 1 Nr. 2 GKG
3, § 52 Abs. 5 Satz 1 Nr. 2 GKG in der Fassung vom 5.
§ 52 Abs. 6 Satz 1 Nr. 2 GKG
§ 52 Abs. 6 Satz 1 Nr. 2 GKG.
§§ 40, 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 und Abs. 3, § 52 Abs. 5 Satz 1 Nr. 2 GKG
Specific provisions used in conjunction with § 71 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG to calculate the value of the matter for the complaint procedure.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 i.V.m. § 52 Abs. 6 Satz 1 Nr. 2 GKG
Procedural rule applied to set the preliminary value of the matter for the revision procedure.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
2 BvR 1989/12
Constitutional limits on age-based entry restrictions for civil servants and required specificity of legislative authorization for delegating basic rights limitations
AI generated
2 BvR 2062/11
Civil service appointment age limits and violation of the constitutional performance principle
2 BvR 2113/11
Invalidity of statutory civil service maximum age limits under the principle of merit
2 B 7/11
Constitutional validity of statutory maximum age limit for entry into probationary civil service and applicability of causal requirement for age-limit exceptions
2 C 2/11
Validity of maximum age limit for civil service appointment under constitutional and EU non-discrimination law
2 B 52/11
Validity of statutory recruitment age limits for civil service and constitutional proportionality of exception clauses

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO

Main ground for granting leave to file an appeal on points of law due to a divergence between the lower court's decision and a subsequent ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court.

§ 71 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Procedural rule applied to determine the court fees for the complaint procedure.

§§ 40, 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 und Abs. 3, § 52 Abs. 5 Satz 1 Nr. 2 GKG

Specific provisions used in conjunction with § 71 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG to calculate the value of the matter for the complaint procedure.

§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 i.V.m. § 52 Abs. 6 Satz 1 Nr. 2 GKG

Procedural rule applied to set the preliminary value of the matter for the revision procedure.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Revisionszulassung; Einstellungshöchstaltersgrenzen im Öffentlichen Dienst

[GRUENDE]

Die Revision der Klägerin ist zuzulassen, weil der Beschluss des Oberverwaltungsgerichts von dem zwischenzeitlich ergangenen Beschluss des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom 21. April 2015 - 2 BvR 1989/12 - abweicht (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO).

Die Streitwertfestsetzung für das Beschwerdeverfahren folgt aus § 71 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG i.V.m. §§ 40, 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 und Abs. 3, § 52 Abs. 5 Satz 1 Nr. 2 GKG in der Fassung vom 5. Mai 2004 (BGBl. I S. 718); die vorläufige Festsetzung des Streitwerts für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 i.V.m. § 52 Abs. 6 Satz 1 Nr. 2 GKG.