BVerwG 2 B 58/13, 2 B 58/13 (2 C 6/14)•Revision allowed on low-value mitigation in disciplinary theft cases
BVerwG 2 B 58/13, 2 B 58/13 (2 C 6/14)Bverwg / Division 2Jan 14, 2014Granted
Extracted by Omnilex
The Federal Administrative Court admitted revision in a disciplinary matter. It held that the case raises a question of fundamental importance: whether facts that justify treating misconduct as an access offense may also be used to exclude the mitigating factor of low-value property. The court found the question suitable for clarification in revision and therefore allowed the appeal.
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; § 67 Satz 1 DG NW 2004: Revision admissible for fundamental importance where the case presents a legal question capable of clarification in revision. In disciplinary proceedings concerning conduct comparable to an access offense, it remains open whether the circumstances supporting such equivalence may at the same time negate the acknowledged mitigating circumstance of the low value of the object. If the answer to this question is not settled and is relevant to the outcome, admission of revision is warranted (consid. 1).
Entscheidungsdatum: 2014-01-14
Aktenzeichen: 2 B 58/13, 2 B 58/13 (2 C 6/14)
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 132 Abs 2 Nr 1 VwGO, § 67 S 1 DG NW 2004
Vorinstanz: vorgehend Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, 27. März 2013, Az: 3d A 2363/09.O, Urteil
Spruchkörper: 2. Senat
Dienstvergehen; Zugriffsdelikt; Milderungsgrund der Geringwertigkeit der Sache; Revisionszulassung
1 Die Revision wird wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache zugelassen (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 67 Satz 1 LDG NRW). Das Revisionsverfahren erscheint geeignet zur Klärung der Frage beizutragen, ob Umstände, die die Gleichstellung eines Dienstvergehens mit einem Zugriffsdelikt rechtfertigen, zugleich dazu herangezogen werden können, den in der Rechtsprechung anerkannten Milderungsgrund der Geringwertigkeit der Sache auszuschließen (vgl. Urteil vom 11. Juni 2002 - BVerwG 1 D 31.01 - BVerwGE 116, 308 <312>).
Extracted by Omnilex
Whether revision should be admitted for fundamental importance under § 132(2)(1) VwGO and § 67 sentence 1 DG NW 2004.
Revision was admitted because the case could clarify whether circumstances justifying equivalence with an access offense may also exclude the recognized mitigating factor of low-value property.
The unresolved legal question has significance beyond the individual case and is suitable for clarification in revision.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.