Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
2 B 16/20, 2 B 16/20 (2 C 12/20) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2020:270520B2B16.20.0 AI generated

Admissibility of declaratory action for unlawfulness of academic selection decision after aborted recruitment due to preliminary injunction

Case Number 2 B 16/20, 2 B 16/20 (2 C 12/20)
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 ordered the admission of the appeal (Revision) and overturned the lower court’s refusal to permit it, effectively allowing the proceeding to advance to the next level. The case concerns a declaratory action for the continuation of a legal situation (Fortsetzungsfeststellungsklage) brought by a candidate not selected for a professorship, who sought to establish the unlawfulness of the selection decision to support a subsequent liability claim based on Article 33(2) of the German Basic Law. The specific factual context involves the employer’s abortment of the recruitment process following the issuance of a preliminary injunction that temporarily prohibited the appointment of the originally chosen candidate. The decision rests on the ground that the case is of fundamental legal significance (§ 132(2) No. 1 VwGO), requiring clarification on the prerequisites for a non-selected applicant to obtain a judicial declaration of the illegality of a selection decision in administrative courts when the hiring procedure has been terminated due to such an interim measure.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, Art. 33 Abs. 2 GG; Admissibility of declaratory action for unlawfulness of academic selection decision after aborted recruitment due to preliminary injunction: The case concerns a declaratory action for the continuation of a legal situation (Fortsetzungsfeststellungsklage) brought by a candidate not selected for a professorship, who sought to establish the unlawfulness of the selection decision to support a subsequent liability claim based on Article 33(2) of the German Basic Law. The specific factual context involves the employer’s abortment of the recruitment process following the issuance of a preliminary injunction that temporarily prohibited the appointment of the originally chosen candidate. The decision rests on the ground that the case is of fundamental legal significance (§ 132(2) No. 1 VwGO), requiring clarification on the prerequisites for a non-selected applicant to obtain a judicial declaration of the illegality of a selection decision in administrative courts when the hiring procedure has been terminated due to such an interim measure.

Keywords

AI generated
declaratory decision interim employment judicial law appointment procedure preliminary ruling procedure grounds for revision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Grounds for admitting the appeal due to the fundamental significance of the legal issue.
Art. 33 Abs. 2 GG
Das Verfahren erscheint geeignet, zur weiteren Klärung beizutragen, unter welchen Voraussetzungen eine bei einer Auswahlentscheidung nicht berücksichtigte Bewerberin im Hinblick auf den bei den ordentlichen Gerichten wegen der Verletzung ihres Rechts aus Art. 33 Abs.
AI generated
IV AR (VZ) 2/12
Admissibility of declaratory relief for review of arbitrary selection of court-appointed compulsory administrators
2 C 30/15
Academic recruitment: admissibility of evaluating only published works and timing of interim legal remedy for rejected candidates
2 A 5/22
Declaratory judgment ineligibility after realization of promotional military staff assignment due to lack of interest in legal establishment
1 BvR 3606/13
Preliminary injunction to block professor appointment: irreversibility of right to effective judicial review outweighs delay in public service recruitment
2 C 12/20
No state liability for lawful abortion of selection procedure following provisional ban on appointment based on procedural error under Art. 33(2) GG

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Grounds for admitting the appeal due to the fundamental significance of the legal issue.

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

Fortsetzungsfeststellungsklage nach Abbruch eines Auswahlverfahrens betreffend eine Professorenstelle; Revisionszulassung

[TENOR]

Die Entscheidung des Oberverwaltungsgerichts Berlin-Brandenburg über die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil vom 7. November 2019 wird aufgehoben.

Die Revision wird zugelassen.

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

[GRUENDE]

Die Revision wird wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO) zugelassen.

Das Verfahren erscheint geeignet, zur weiteren Klärung beizutragen, unter welchen Voraussetzungen eine bei einer Auswahlentscheidung nicht berücksichtigte Bewerberin im Hinblick auf den bei den ordentlichen Gerichten wegen der Verletzung ihres Rechts aus Art. 33 Abs. 2 GG geltend gemachten Haftungsanspruch vor den Verwaltungsgerichten die Rechtswidrigkeit der Auswahlentscheidung feststellen lassen kann. Es geht um die Fallkonstellation, dass der Dienstherr das Verfahren im Anschluss an den von dieser Bewerberin erwirkten Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung abgebrochen hat, mit der dem Dienstherrn vorläufig untersagt worden ist, die ausgeschriebene Stelle mit dem von ihm ausgewählten Bewerber zu besetzen.