Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
2 B 53/18, 2 B 53/18 (2 C 6/19) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2019:250419B2B53.18.0 AI generated

Divergence on whether grossly negligent, multi-month absence from duty justifies maximum disciplinary sanction for civil servants

Case Number 2 B 53/18, 2 B 53/18 (2 C 6/19)
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 (BVerwG) granted the defendant's application for leave to file an appeal, finding that the lower court's judgment deviated from established precedent and ordering a re-examination by the highest administrative court. The dispute concerned whether several months of grossly negligent absence from duty by a civil servant regularly justified imposing the maximum disciplinary sanction of discharge from service. The lower court had held that such grossly negligent absence was sufficient to warrant the highest measure as the starting point for sentencing. The BVerwG ruled that this interpretation diverged from its settled case law, which limits the presumption that the maximum disciplinary sanction is appropriate to cases involving *intentional* unauthorized absence from service lasting several months.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO, § 67 Satz 1 LDG NRW; Divergence on whether grossly negligent, multi-month absence from duty justifies maximum disciplinary sanction for civil servants: The dispute concerned whether several months of grossly negligent absence from duty by a civil servant regularly justified imposing the maximum disciplinary sanction of discharge from service. The lower court had held that such grossly negligent absence was sufficient to warrant the highest measure as the starting point for sentencing. The BVerwG ruled that this interpretation diverged from its settled case law, which limits the presumption that the maximum disciplinary sanction is appropriate to cases involving *intentional* unauthorized absence from service lasting several months.

Keywords

AI generated
absence without leave disciplinary law administrative sanction duties of civil servants interpretation of a judgment dismissal of civil servant

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO
Main ground for the verdict, cited to justify the admission of the revision due to divergence from the Federal Administrative Court's case law.
§ 67 Satz 1 LDG NRW
Procedural rule applied in the dispositive, cited in conjunction with the Federal Administrative Court's procedural law to allow the appeal.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
BVerwGE 155, 35
April 2016 - 2 C 13.15 - BVerwGE 155, 35 Rn.
AI generated
2 B 6/20
Secondary employment during sick leave and breach of duty of loyalty in civil service disciplinary proceedings
2 B 55/13
Civil service removal for extramural fraud and military-service misconduct: objective disciplinary standards and applicability of the Federal Disciplinary Law
2 B 28/16
Disciplinary dismissal for unauthorized absence: irrelevance of unnotified disability status and preclusive effect of prior service-capability finding
2 WD 13/24
Negligent unauthorized leave absence based on mistaken approval: Promotion ban as baseline disciplinary sanction
2 C 9/21
Unapproved absenteeism: Suspension of disciplinary limitation period during judicial proceedings initiated by defective petition

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO

Main ground for the verdict, cited to justify the admission of the revision due to divergence from the Federal Administrative Court's case law.

§ 67 Satz 1 LDG NRW

Procedural rule applied in the dispositive, cited in conjunction with the Federal Administrative Court's procedural law to allow the appeal.

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

Disziplinare Höchstmaßnahme auch bei grob fahrlässigem Fernbleiben vom Dienst; Zulassung der Revision wegen Divergenz

[GRUENDE]

Die Revision des Beklagten ist zuzulassen, weil das Urteil des Oberverwaltungsgerichts von der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts abweicht und auf dieser Abweichung beruht (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO, § 67 Satz 1 LDG NRW).

Das Oberverwaltungsgericht hält bereits das mehrmonatige grob fahrlässige Fernbleiben eines Beamten vom Dienst für regelmäßig hinreichend, die disziplinare Höchstmaßnahme zum Ausgangspunkt der Maßnahmebemessung zu machen (Berufungsurteil, Bl. 28 - 33). Demgegenüber geht die Rechtsprechung des Senats bisher allein für den Fall des vorsätzlichen unerlaubten Fernbleibens vom Dienst über Monate hinweg regelmäßig von der Angemessenheit der disziplinaren Höchstmaßnahme - d.h. der Entfernung aus dem Beamtenverhältnis - aus (vgl. zuletzt BVerwG, Urteil vom 21. April 2016 - 2 C 13.15 - BVerwGE 155, 35 Rn. 11).