Search
Contact
20.01.2021 | KPMG Law Insights

VG Munich: Obtaining of external and comparative expert opinions and use of external personnel consulting firm in the preparation of an appointment proposal for filling a university professorship

VG Munich: Obtaining of external and comparative expert opinions and use of external personnel consulting firm in the preparation of an appointment proposal for filling a university professorship

In a nutshell

The VG Munich (decision of 11.11.2020 – M 5 E 20/2270) ruled that it was within the discretion of the appointment committee to initially determine some candidates as “provisionally not eligible for listing” in the appointment procedure for the preparation of the appointment proposal, but to still have these candidates assessed externally and comparatively. In addition, the appointment committee would also be allowed to use an external personnel consulting firm to prepare the appointment proposal.

Background

An applicant for a W2 professorship in French with a focus on business French and cultural and country studies of the Francophone region at a university was not included in the appointment list. He objected to this decision, in particular because it had been reached in violation of the procedure. Thus, in the preparation of the appointment proposal, external comparative expert opinions had also been obtained for such applicants who – like the applicant – had already been classified by the appointment committee as “provisionally not eligible for listing”. In addition, no outside human resources consulting firm should have been involved in the decision. The external evaluators had rated the applicant as “not suitable”; in the overall assessment of the HR consulting firm, he had ranked last among all applicants, but had still been rated as “suitable.”

Decision

However, his application for interim relief in the competitor dispute proceedings was rejected. The applicant had not made a plausible case that he was entitled to claim damages from his application procedure under Art. 33 Para. 2 GG, Art. 94 para. 2 sentence 2 of the Bavarian Constitution, he had a right to a new decision on his application and not to have the position filled for the time being. This is because the selection decision of the appointment committee was reached without procedural error in the multi-stage appointment procedure pursuant to Art. 18 BayHSchPG.

In particular, the obtaining of external and comparative expert opinions also on the applicants assessed as ineligible for listing was within the legal framework and could not be objected to.

According to Art. 18 para. 4 p. 5 BayHSchPG, the Appeals Committee draws up a proposal for an appointment, which should include three names, and obtains external and comparative expert opinions.

However, neither the wording nor the purpose of this provision can be interpreted as meaning that these expert opinions may only be obtained for candidates who are eligible to be listed. It is true that it would generally make less sense to have an expert opinion prepared for an applicant who has already been classified as ineligible for listing. In principle, however, it was at the discretion of the appeals committee to decide which sources it needed in order to obtain a comprehensive picture of the group of applicants. In the present case, the Appeals Committee had only provisionally decided on the eligibility of the applicants and reserved the right to make a final decision once the expert opinions, statements, etc. were available. There is no legal objection to this.

Contrary to the applicant’s view, the out-of-town appraisals should also have compared the applicants. According to the law, “outside comparative expert opinions” should be obtained. Obtaining “comparative” expert opinions means that the respective expert must first assess each candidate against the assessment criteria and then assess the candidates against each other.

The argument that there is no legal basis for personnel consultants commissioned by the university to conduct interviews with applicants is also unconvincing. With the exception of the obligation to obtain external and comparative expert opinions as stipulated in p. 5, Art. 18 (4) p. 5 BayHSchPG does not contain any further requirements as to which sources of knowledge the appointment committee has to base its decision on. It was therefore left to the dutiful discretion of the appointment committee to decide which sources it required in order to obtain a comprehensive picture of the group of applicants. For example, psychological reports, personality tests or similar could be carried out with the applicants.

It was not substantiated that the personnel appraisals would present a distorted picture of the applicants, since the number of competencies assessed differed depending on the personnel. According to the defendant’s submission, the relative strengths and weaknesses of the applicants presented were due to the fact that the entire personality was assessed in each case as part of the personnel appraisal. There is no legal objection to this.

What can the reader take away?

The decision shows that the bodies responsible for providing appointment proposals have discretion in shaping the decision-making process in the absence of explicit statutory requirements. This also means that the design of the decision-making process can only be reviewed by the administrative courts to a limited extent (cf. Section 114 VwGO).

The exercise of the Appeals Committee’s discretion may include, for example, declaring candidates only “provisionally” ineligible for listing, but still awaiting the out-of-state comparative reviews.

The use of external personnel consulting firms in the decision-making process can also be a permissible component of the decision-making process without requiring an explicit legal basis for this.

Since obtaining external and/or comparative expert opinions is also part of the appointment procedure for university professors in other federal states (cf. e.g. Sec. 38 (3) Sentence 2 HochschulG NRW, Sec. 13 BerufungsO Universität Hamburg), the present decision is also relevant there.

Explore #more

09.07.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Restructuring with staff reductions: preparation is key

The downsizing or closure of a part of a company often also necessitates staff reductions. Depending on the number of employees affected, the works council…

08.07.2025 | Deal Notifications

KPMG Law advises Finish Finnfoam Group on the acquisition of the Phonotherm business of insolvent BOSIG Baukunststoffe GmbH

KPMG Law advised Finnfoam Group (Salo/Finland) on the acquisition of the business unit “Phonotherm” from BOSIG Baukunststoffe GmbH via the newly founded Warmotech GmbH as…

07.07.2025 | Deal Notifications

KPMG Law advises HEMRO International AG on the acquisition of Xenia Espresso GmbH

KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH (KPMG Law) provided legal advice to HEMRO Group, a global manufacturer of coffee grinders and grinding technologies headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland,…

04.07.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

BGH clarifies the limits of the definition of customer installations

On July 3, 2025, the BGH published the reasons for its ruling of May 13, 2025 (case no. EnVR 83/20) and provided the eagerly awaited…

02.07.2025 | In the media

Guest article by Moritz Püstow on the special fund for infrastructure

The German government wants to invest 500 billion euros in infrastructure and climate neutrality. This creates new business opportunities for the construction industry – but…

01.07.2025 | Deal Notifications

KPMG Law advised Bosch on the multinational carve-out of the entire product business of Bosch Building Technologies to investor Triton

KPMG Law advises Robert Bosch on the carve-out of the building technologies division’s product business for security and communications technology (Bosch Building Technologies) in more…

27.06.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Hospital restructuring: three steps out of the crisis

Many clinics see their existence threatened in the short or medium term. Other healthcare facilities are also experiencing economic difficulties. Inadequate remuneration structures, staff shortages,…

27.06.2025 | In the media

KPMG Law nominated at the PMN Awards

We are delighted to have been nominated directly in two categories at the PMN Awards 2025. Our “Extended Workbench” project was nominated in the…

25.06.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Business Travel and Assignment in the USA: What you need to know about US immigration

The recent changes in US immigration rules are causing uncertainty worldwide. In particular, since the new US government took office, processes regarding entry into the…

11.06.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Omnibus IV brings some simplifications, especially in product law

The EU Commission proposed the fourth omnibus package on May 21, 2025. Omnibus IV contains simplifications in relation to numerous product law requirements and…

Contact

Julia Hornbostel

Senior Associate

Fuhlentwiete 5
20355 Hamburg

Tel.: +49 40 3609945162
jhornbostel@kpmg-law.com

© 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