Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
3 B 34/11, 3 B 34/11 (3 C 31/11) AI generated

Suspension of Medical License: Lapse of Statutory Prerequisites Upon Final Conclusion of Criminal Proceedings

Case Number 3 B 34/11, 3 B 34/11 (3 C 31/11)
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 allowed the plaintiff's complaint, finding that the lower court's judgment deviated from a prior binding precedent; consequently, the plaintiff prevailed in this admissibility decision for the subsequent revision. The dispute concerned the legality of an authority's order to suspend a medical license (approbation) following the final conclusion of a criminal proceeding. The decisive legal issue centered on § 6(1)(1) of the Federal Physicians Act, where the prior precedent established that the statutory prerequisites for suspension lapse upon the final closure of the criminal case, a principle the lower court had incorrectly rejected.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 GKG, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG; Suspension of Medical License: Lapse of Statutory Prerequisites Upon Final Conclusion of Criminal Proceedings: The dispute concerned the legality of an authority's order to suspend a medical license (approbation) following the final conclusion of a criminal proceeding. The decisive legal issue centered on § 6(1)(1) of the Federal Physicians Act, where the prior precedent established that the statutory prerequisites for suspension lapse upon the final closure of the criminal case, a principle the lower court had incorrectly rejected.

Keywords

AI generated
revision of a judgment statutory basis prior administrative complaint principle of legality revocation of a licence preliminary decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO
Cited as the procedural basis for admitting the complaint due to a deviation from prior binding case law.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Cited to authorize the court's decision on the preliminary determination of the amount in dispute for costs.
§ 47 Abs. 1 GKG
Cited in conjunction with other norms to provide the legal basis for the preliminary determination of the amount in dispute for costs.
§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG
Cited to establish the legal framework for the preliminary determination of the amount in dispute for costs.
AI generated
3 C 13/19
Suspension of medical license requires concrete danger during pending criminal proceedings, not just probable conviction
3 B 6/11
Revocation of Medical License for Criminal Conduct: Professional Linkage to Medical Practice and Evidentiary Weight of Final Criminal Judgments in Administrative Proceedings
3 B 36/12
Refusal of medical re-licensing: evidentiary standard for restoration of professional dignity and admissibility of revision
1 BvR 722/10
Suspension of immediate execution of medical license revocation: proportionality of general preventive interests versus irreparable professional harm under occupational freedom and effective judicial review.
1 BvR 1657/17
Revocation of medical license: sufficiency of statutory "unfitness" basis and proportionality of occupational freedom restriction

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO

Cited as the procedural basis for admitting the complaint due to a deviation from prior binding case law.

§ 47 Abs. 1 GKG

Cited in conjunction with other norms to provide the legal basis for the preliminary determination of the amount in dispute for costs.

§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG

Cited to establish the legal framework for the preliminary determination of the amount in dispute for costs.

§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Cited to authorize the court's decision on the preliminary determination of the amount in dispute for costs.

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

Anordnung des Ruhens der Approbation

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde des Klägers ist begründet. Das Urteil des Verwaltungsgerichtshofs weicht im Sinne des § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO von dem Beschluss des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts vom 29. November 2007 - BVerwG 3 C 52.06 - ab. Während dem Beschluss des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts der Rechtssatz zugrunde liegt, dass die gesetzlichen Voraussetzungen für eine Anordnung des Ruhens der Approbation nach § 6 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 der Bundesärzteordnung - BÄO - entfallen, wenn das Strafverfahren rechtskräftig abgeschlossen ist, beruht das angegriffene Urteil des Verwaltungsgerichtshofs auf dessen Rechtsauffassung, dass der rechtskräftige Abschluss des Strafverfahrens der Rechtmäßigkeit der Ruhensanordnung nicht entgegensteht.

Die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.