Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
10 B 4/13, 10 B 4/13 (10 C 6/13) Generato dall'IA

Union-law deportation ban: individual quantification of injury risk required despite armed conflict in country of origin

Numero d'incarto 10 B 4/13, 10 B 4/13 (10 C 6/13)
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Accolto (Allowed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) allowed the defendant's appeal, thereby overturning the lower court's judgment, as it found that the prior decision deviated from established case law regarding the Union-law prohibition on deportation. The dispute centered on whether an individual faces a serious threat from indiscriminate violence in a conflict zone, specifically challenging the lower court's application of § 60 Abs. 7 Satz 2 of the Residence Act (AufenthG). The BVerwG ruled that the existence of an internal armed conflict leading to permanent danger and human rights violations is insufficient to meet the statutory requirements; instead, the lower court erred by failing to conduct a quantitative assessment of the individual's risk of injury or death (Gefahrendichte). This decision confirms that a detailed, individualized determination of the density of the threat is a mandatory prerequisite for establishing the prohibition on deportation under the cited provision, distinguishing this case from the BVerwG's prior rulings of April 27, 2010, and November 17, 2011.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO, § 60 Abs. 7 Satz 2 AufenthG; Union-law deportation ban: individual quantification of injury risk required despite armed conflict in country of origin: The dispute centered on whether an individual faces a serious threat from indiscriminate violence in a conflict zone, specifically challenging the lower court's application of § 60 Abs. 7 Satz 2 of the Residence Act (AufenthG). The BVerwG ruled that the existence of an internal armed conflict leading to permanent danger and human rights violations is insufficient to meet the statutory requirements; instead, the lower court erred by failing to conduct a quantitative assessment of the individual's risk of injury or death (Gefahrendichte). This decision confirms that a detailed, individualized determination of the density of the threat is a mandatory prerequisite for establishing the prohibition on deportation under the cited provision, distinguishing this case from the BVerwG's prior rulings of April 27, 2010, and November 17, 2011.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
legge sull'asilo divieto di espulsione conflitto armato diritto di soggiorno diritti umani valutazione dei rischi

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO
Procedural basis cited to establish that the appellate court's judgment deviated from established case law, justifying the admission of the non-appealable complaint.
§ 60 Abs. 7 Satz 2 AufenthG
2 VwGO von der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts zum Begriff der ernsthaften individuellen Bedrohung infolge willkürlicher Gewalt als Voraussetzung für die Feststellung des unionsrechtlichen Abschiebungsverbots nach § 60 Abs. 7 Satz 2 AufenthG ab, wie die Beschwerde zutreffend rügt.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerwGE 136, 360
April 2010 - BVerwG 10 C 4.09 - (BVerwGE 136, 360 = Buchholz 451.902 Europ.
Generato dall'IA
10 C 15/10
Conflict between Union-law subsidiary protection and the statutory ban on individual relief for general dangers in deportation cases.
10 C 26/10
Revocation of refugee status for exclusion due to terrorist participation: union-law requirement of individual responsibility without current danger or proportionality test
10 B 24/11
Inclusion of Union-law-based deportation bans in appellate proceedings and procedural failure to assess conscription risks under § 60 Abs. 2 AufenthG
10 C 4/09
Subsidiary Protection in Armed Conflict: Nexus of Prior Harm and Arbitrary Violence Levels under Qualification Directive
10 B 22/12
Extraterritorial deportation protection under § 60 Abs. 7 Satz 2 AufenthG: determining the relevant return region and internal protection thresholds in non-nationwide armed conflicts.

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Procedural basis cited to establish that the appellate court's judgment deviated from established case law, justifying the admission of the non-appealable complaint.

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

Unionsrechtliches Abschiebungsverbot; ernsthafte individuelle Bedrohung infolge willkürlicher Gewalt; Divergenzrüge

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde der Beklagten ist zulässig und begründet.

Das Berufungsurteil weicht im Sinne von § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO von der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts zum Begriff der ernsthaften individuellen Bedrohung infolge willkürlicher Gewalt als Voraussetzung für die Feststellung des unionsrechtlichen Abschiebungsverbots nach § 60 Abs. 7 Satz 2 AufenthG ab, wie die Beschwerde zutreffend rügt. Der Verwaltungsgerichtshof hat seiner Entscheidung ersichtlich den Rechtssatz zugrunde gelegt, dass es für die Erfüllung der Voraussetzungen des § 60 Abs. 7 Satz 2 AufenthG genügt, dass im Herkunftsstaat des Ausländers ein innerstaatlicher bewaffneter Konflikt besteht, der zu permanenten Gefährdungen der Bevölkerung und schweren Menschenrechtsverletzungen führt (UA S. 7), es für die individuelle Betroffenheit von der Gefahr aber keiner Feststellungen zur Gefahrendichte bedarf, die jedenfalls auch eine quantitative Ermittlung des Tötungs- und Verletzungsrisikos zu umfassen hat.

Das Berufungsurteil setzt sich damit zu einem Rechtssatz der von der Beschwerde angeführten Urteile des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts vom 27. April 2010 - BVerwG 10 C 4.09 - (BVerwGE 136, 360 = Buchholz 451.902 Europ. Ausl.- u. Asylrecht Nr.

38) und vom 17. November 2011 - BVerwG 10 C 13.10 - (Buchholz 451.902 Europ. Ausl.- u. Asylrecht Nr.

58) in Widerspruch.

Die Entscheidung des Verwaltungsgerichtshofs beruht auf dieser Abweichung.