Search
Contact
23.10.2019 | KPMG Law Insights

OVG Lüneburg: Unlawful termination of appeal proceedings

OVG Lüneburg: Unlawful termination of appeal proceedings

Facts:

The legal dispute between a university and an applicant for a professorship deals with the question whether the reduction of the value of a doctoral grade due to location- and subject-specific peculiarities of the university doing the doctorate by the competent ministry constitutes an objective reason for the termination of an appointment procedure. The applicant obtained her doctorate with the grade “magna cum laude”. The university considered the special qualification of the applicant required according to § 25 para. 1 no. 3 of the Lower Saxony Higher Education Act (NHG) to be proven by the above-average doctorate and placed the applicant on the first place of the appointment proposal for the responsible ministry. The ministry decided to appoint the second-ranked applicant, who declined the appointment, deviating from the order of the appointment proposal with the consent of the university. Other names, despite 14 other applicants, were not in the appointment proposal. The Ministry of Higher Education ruled out the appointment of the first-placed applicant for lack of proof of the requirement for appointment according to § 25 para. 1 no. 3 NHG. Her doctoral grade was only to be evaluated as average due to location and subject-specific characteristics of the doctoral university. Thus, there was a factual reason for the discontinuation of the examination procedure. After being informed of the discontinuation by the university, the applicant applied for interim legal protection and was unsuccessful at first instance. On her appeal, the Higher Administrative Court of Lüneburg (OVG Lüneburg, decision of 02.05.2019, ref.: 5 ME 68/19) decided to change the decision of the Administrative Court (VG) and to oblige the university to continue the appointment procedure, taking into account the other applicants.

Reasons for Decision:

The termination of the appeal proceedings proved to be unlawful due to the lack of a substantive reason. Although the decision on the appointment ultimately lies with the ministry, the universities have a decision-making prerogative with regard to the assessment of the qualifications and suitability of the applicants. The university’s appointment proposal thus has a binding effect in principle, provided there is no cause for objection. The decision of the university is protected by the presumption of professional correctness and also serves to protect the freedom of science (Art. 5 Para. 3 GG), the right of participation and the self-organization of the universities. The departmental ministry may only deviate from this for special reasons, e.g. in the case of legal errors such as the non-existence of the hiring requirements of § 25 NHG. Such special reasons were not apparent in this appeal. According to § 25 para. 1 No. 3 NHG, the special aptitude for in-depth independent scientific work is usually demonstrated by an above-average doctorate. The applicant’s doctoral grade of “magna cum laude”, like the grade of “summa cum laude”, represents an above-average performance under all doctoral regulations, and the university was correct in concluding that the applicant’s special qualifications had been demonstrated. The Ministry has no discretion to reduce the value of a doctoral grade on the grounds that, statistically speaking, this grade is merely average at the university awarding the doctorate or in the department concerned. Moreover, the comparative figure of eight doctorates used by the Ministry was not at all sufficient to draw conclusions from. In doing so, the Ministry had inadmissibly interfered with the university’s assessment competence. Contrary to the assumption of the Administrative Court, the university had not adopted the legal opinion of the Ministry when it terminated the appointment procedure; rather, the university had made it clear in various forms that it was convinced of the applicant’s suitability and had requested her appointment on several occasions.
Significance for practice: With this decision, the OVG strengthens the rights of participation and the possibilities for self-organization of the universities. Although the department may deviate from the order of an appointment proposal, return it in its entirety or even terminate the appointment procedure, this always requires a special reason. Factual reasons for discontinuation are, for example, if the position is no longer to be filled or is to be cut differently, or if no applicant meets expectations. According to the ruling, the university decides on the latter primarily and bindingly, provided that it does not exceed its scope for evaluation. A justified overruling of the assessment of the university by the department is thus only the exception.

Explore #more

11.04.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Coalition agreement 2025: What the plans mean for the economy

The CDU/CSU and SPD have agreed on a coalition agreement. The central theme is the renewal of the promise of the social market economy. The…

10.04.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Focus on labor law – this is what the 2025 coalition agreement provides for

The CDU/CSU and SPD agreed on a coalition agreement on April 9, 2025. The overarching title of the paper is “Responsibility for Germany”. On 146…

04.04.2025 | In the media

KPMG Law Statement in DER PLATOW Brief: FiDA – The regulatory hammer

FiDA could revolutionize the financial market. The new regulation could provide third-party providers with standardized access to financial data. But high costs and unanswered questions…

03.04.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

First Omnibus Package to relax the obligations of the CSDDD, CSRD and EU taxonomy

The EU Commission has today published the draft of the first announced Omnibus Package. With the first directive as part of the omnibus initiative,…

24.03.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Product piracy in online retail: these are the latest tricks

Product piracy is also flourishing with the growth in online trade. A major problem for brand owners, but also a challenge for online marketplaces and…

24.03.2025 | Deal Notifications

KPMG Law advises Munich Airport on the sale of aerogate München Gesellschaft für Luftverkehrsabfertigungen mbH

KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH (KPMG Law) provided legal advice to Flughafen München GmbH (FMG) on the sale of its subsidiary aerogate München Gesellschaft für Luftverkehrsabfertigungen…

21.03.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Special infrastructure assets: how the administration manages to implement projects quickly

The special infrastructure fund creates the opportunity to catch up on years of investment backlog. There is a need for urgency. Defence capability, economic growth…

20.03.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

AI Act: This applies to AI in universities and research

Artificial intelligence (AI) offers numerous opportunities for research, teaching and administration, but also raises complex legal issues. The European Union’s AI Regulation(AI Act)…

19.03.2025 | In the media

BUJ/KPMG Law Summit Transformation

The Bundesverband der Unternehmensjuristinnen und Unternehmensjuristen e.V. (BUJ) and KPMG Law cordially invite you to the BUJ Summit Transformation on May 28, 2025 in Frankfurt…

18.03.2025 | In the media

KPMG Law Statement in the German transport magazine DVZ: Planning at a crawl; DIHK sees great potential for faster traffic route construction

The Chamber of Commerce in Arnsberg regularly awards prizes to the worst state roads in the Hellweg-Sauerland region of Westphalia. A funny idea, if it…

© 2024 KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, associated with KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a public limited company under German law and a member of the global KPMG organisation of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a Private English Company Limited by Guarantee. All rights reserved. For more details on the structure of KPMG’s global organisation, please visit https://home.kpmg/governance.

 KPMG International does not provide services to clients. No member firm is authorised to bind or contract KPMG International or any other member firm to any third party, just as KPMG International is not authorised to bind or contract any other member firm.

Scroll