BVerwG 1 B 26/14, 1 B 26/14, 1 PKH 20/14 (1 C 2/15)•Revision admissibility and scope of review in revocation of removal ban
BVerwG 1 B 26/14, 1 B 26/14, 1 PKH 20/14 (1 C 2/15)Bverwg / 1. Abteilung08.01.2015Granted
Von Omnilex extrahiert
The Federal Administrative Court granted legal aid and upheld the defendant's complaint against non-admission of the revision. It admitted the revision because the case presents a question of fundamental significance concerning the scope of judicial review in the revocation of a removal ban. After that, the court did not address the remaining asserted grounds for admission.
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; revisional review may be admitted where the complaint discloses a question of fundamental significance concerning the scope of judicial control in proceedings on the revocation of a removal ban. Once this ground is established, other asserted grounds for admission require no further examination. Legal aid is to be granted if the requirements of §§ 166 VwGO, 114 ff. and 119 Abs. 1 Satz 2 ZPO are fulfilled.
Entscheidungsdatum: 2015-01-08
Aktenzeichen: 1 B 26/14, 1 B 26/14, 1 PKH 20/14 (1 C 2/15)
ECLI: ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2015:080115B1B26.14.0
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 132 Abs 2 Nr 1 VwGO
Vorinstanz: vorgehend Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, 26. August 2014, Az: 13 A 1828/09.A, Urteilvorgehend VG Minden, 22. Juni 2009, Az: 9 K 1329/08.A
Spruchkörper: 1. Senat
Revisionszulassung; gerichtlicher Prüfungsumfang beim Abschiebungsverbotswiderruf
1 Die Voraussetzungen für die Bewilligung von Prozesskostenhilfe liegen vor (§ 166 VwGO, §§ 114 ff., § 119 Abs. 1 Satz 2 ZPO).
2 Die Beschwerde der Beklagten ist zulässig und begründet. Die Revision ist wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO zuzulassen. Sie kann dem Senat Gelegenheit zur weiteren Klärung des gerichtlichen Prüfungsumfanges bei dem Widerruf von Abschiebungsverboten geben.
3 Auf die von der Beschwerde weiter geltend gemachten Zulassungsgründe kommt es danach nicht mehr an.
Von Omnilex extrahiert
Whether legal aid should be granted for the complaint proceedings.
Legal aid was granted because the statutory requirements were met.
The court found that the requirements of §§ 166 VwGO, 114 ff. and 119(1) sentence 2 ZPO were satisfied.
Whether the defendant's complaint warranted admission of the revision due to fundamental significance.
The revision was admitted because the case raised a question of fundamental significance, namely the scope of judicial review when revoking removal bans.
The complaint was admissible and well-founded under § 132(2) no. 1 VwGO, and the case could clarify the extent of judicial review in revocation proceedings.
Whether the other asserted grounds for admission needed to be examined.
They did not need to be addressed after revision was admitted on the ground of fundamental significance.
Once one admissibility ground was sufficient, the court no longer had to consider the additional grounds.
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.