Hardship Commission

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following important information is missing from this article or section:
The changes to the Brandenburg Ordinance (GVBl. 2013 II No. 29) have not yet been incorporated. - Opihuck 14:31, Nov. 3, 2013 (CET)
Help Wikipedia by researching and pasting it .

The committees set up at the ministries of the interior (in Baden-Württemberg: at the ministry of integration ) and at the interior senators of the German federal states are called hardship commission , which nonetheless can help foreigners who are legally obliged to leave and who are not entitled to a right of residence under current law to obtain a right of residence because enforcement the obligation to leave would be humanly or morally unbearable. The preamble to the Lower Saxony regulation states that the hardship commission is making a decisive humanitarian contribution to solutions in which the application of regulations governing immigration law leads to results that the legislature clearly did not want.

The hardship commission is organizationally located at a supreme state authority , but is not subject to its instructions.

History of origin

The hardship commission in its current form was introduced by the Residence Act with effect from January 1, 2005. Hardship commissions existed before in some federal states (e.g. in Berlin, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, North Rhine-Westphalia and Schleswig-Holstein). Its establishment was based on the knowledge that it is impossible to regulate issues relevant to immigration law abstractly and generally so perfectly that the legal consequences arising from the application of these rules are also satisfactory in each individual case. The practical need to find a way to correct individual cases in order to alleviate unbearable hardship contributed to the creation of the Hardship Commission. It is also seen as a reaction to the church asylum that was often granted in the past .

The existence of hardship commissions is not unproblematic from a legal point of view, because the executive (in particular the immigration authorities ) is bound by law and statute ( Art. 20 (3 ) GG ). Every official decision requires a legal basis. This rule of law, which defines the rule of law, is to a certain extent undermined by the hardship commission because it can help to obtain a right of residence beyond written law. Probably because of this, their establishment was controversial in the legislative process. In the federal government's draft law, it was initially only mentioned in a small paragraph without further justification. In order to reach a consensus between the Bundestag and the Bundesrat, the Mediation Committee finally dedicated a separate paragraph ( Section 23a of the Residence Act) to it and at the same time outlined the detailed requirements and the procedure there. It was also left to the federal states to decide on the establishment of a hardship commission; there is still no obligation to set up. Not least because new legal territory was broken, the statutory authorization was initially limited to five years.

In the period that followed, all 16 federal states set up hardship commissions, mainly through state ordinances, and in part also through state laws. The commissions in Berlin, Brandenburg, North Rhine-Westphalia, Saarland and Schleswig-Holstein started work as early as January 2005. Thuringia followed in February 2005, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and Saxony-Anhalt in March 2005, Rhineland-Palatinate in April 2005, Hamburg in May 2005 and Baden-Württemberg and Saxony in July 2005. The commissions in Bremen (January 2006), Lower Saxony (August 2006) and most recently Bavaria (September 2006).

The concerns initially expressed turned out to be unfounded. The hardship commissions have proven themselves and work successfully. Since it has been shown in practice that the hardship commissions do not open up any new possibilities for legal action, the federal statutory limitation was lifted at the end of 2008. The hardship commissions have thus become a permanent instrument for granting residence.

Requirements for the hardship commission to act

Any fate of a foreigner who is legally obliged to leave the country can be made the subject of the hardship commission. The enforceability of the obligation to leave may occur. a. if the foreigner has been requested to leave the country by the immigration authorities and has been threatened with deportation in the event of refusal and this administrative act has either become incontestable (be it due to the expiry of the appeal period, be it by a judgment rejecting the complaint) or the authority has ordered its immediate execution and an urgent application directed against this, with which the creation of suspensive effect should have been achieved, has been irrevocably rejected by the administrative court.

The option of obtaining a residence permit from the responsible immigration authority through the regular application process must be used beforehand. In some federal states, it is required to have exhausted the legal process before the administrative courts.

For what reason the foreigner is staying in Germany (rejected asylum seeker, civil war refugee or simply unauthorized foreigner) is irrelevant. It is unlikely, but not excluded from the outset, that the hardship commission will deal with the fate of a Union citizen (EU foreigner), because freedom of movement under European law is not granted without restrictions, but also requires a secure livelihood and adequate health insurance coverage for EU foreigners.

If the foreigner has already left the federal territory, the hardship commission can no longer take action. All hardship commission regulations of the federal states require that the foreigner is still in the federal territory .

Composition of the hardship commission

The federal legislature left the composition of the commission to the federal states, so that a wide range of models has developed. Depending on the federal state, the commission consists of seven (Berlin), up to eight (Brandenburg), eight (Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Saarland, Saxony-Anhalt), eight or nine (Saxony), at least seven and at most nine (North Rhine-Westphalia), nine (Bremen, Lower Saxony, Thuringia), 10 (Baden-Wuerttemberg, Bavaria, Rhineland-Palatinate, Schleswig-Holstein) or 23 (Hesse) members, whereby individual members have no right to vote but only to speak. In Hamburg, the number of members depends on the number of parliamentary groups in the parliament ( six since 2015 ).

The composition of the hardship commission also varies depending on the federal state. In addition to representatives from the state side, its members include representatives from churches, umbrella organizations for voluntary welfare, municipal umbrella associations and refugee organizations. Non -governmental organizations are also involved in the decision-making process.

The hardship commissions of the states are composed as follows (legal status: July 31, 2012; the states to which the respective information applies are named in brackets):

  • On the state side, it has one representative each from the Ministry of the Interior or the Senator for the Interior (Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Brandenburg, Bremen, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Lower Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Saxony), who has no voting rights in Bavaria and Lower Saxony. In Thuringia and Rhineland-Palatinate, the respective interior secretary is a member, in Thuringia without voting rights. In Rhineland-Palatinate, in addition to the Secretary of State for the Interior, an employee of the Interior Ministry has a seat on the commission. The Ministry of the Interior has two seats in Hesse and Schleswig-Holstein, and other representatives of the Ministry of the Interior can take part in an advisory capacity in Schleswig-Holstein.
  • The Ministry of Social Affairs or the Senator responsible for social affairs (Brandenburg, Bremen, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Saxony-Anhalt, Saxony) sends one representative each and the Senate Administration responsible for women's policy (Berlin) sends one representative . The ministry responsible for integration policy (Hessen) appoints one representative, the ministry responsible for social livelihood security (Hessen) appoints one representative.
  • In Baden-Württemberg a representative of the Ministry of Integration belongs to the hardship commission; this person also chairs the meeting.
  • In Hesse a representative of the central immigration authorities and in Brandenburg and in North Rhine-Westphalia the head of the office of the hardship commission is a member, but in Brandenburg without voting rights.
  • Some of the foreigners commissioners of the federal states (Baden-Württemberg, Berlin, Brandenburg [without voting rights], Rhineland-Palatinate, Saxony [membership is optional] and Thuringia) have a seat in the hardship commission, in Rhineland-Palatinate also the ombudsman for Rhineland-Palatinate and in Hesse and in Saarland also the working group of foreigners' councils , in Lower Saxony the commissioner for migration and participation (without voting rights).
  • Representatives of the leading associations of voluntary welfare work participate in the hardship commission almost everywhere (Baden-Württemberg, Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saxony-Anhalt, Saxony, Thuringia, one member each, Hesse , Saarland and Schleswig-Holstein two members each and three in Bavaria).
  • With the exception of Hamburg, the Protestant and Catholic Churches are each represented by one representative in the hardship commissions. In Schleswig-Holstein, the religious communities under public law are jointly entitled to two seats.
  • On the municipal side, the representatives of the municipal umbrella organizations (e.g. association of cities and municipalities, association of cities, district association) have a seat and vote in the hardship commissions in Baden-Württemberg, Brandenburg, Lower Saxony, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Saxony, and Saxony -Anhalt, Thuringia two each, in Hesse three and in Bavaria four. In Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania one representative each from the independent cities and the rural districts take part in the meetings and in Schleswig-Holstein two representatives from the working group of the municipal state associations . In Bremen, the city of Bremerhaven is assigned a seat.
  • Representatives of the refugee organizations have the right to participate to a very different extent. In some Länder, the State Refugee Council has a seat (Baden-Württemberg, Berlin, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt), in Berlin also the Migration Council , in Bremen the Bremen Council for Integration . The federal working group Pro Asyl (North Rhine-Westphalia), the Verein Ökumenische Ausländerarbeit e. V. (Bremen), Amnesty International (Hessen, Rhineland-Palatinate), a representative of the counseling institutions for victims of human trafficking (Hessen) and a representative of refugee organizations in Brandenburg. Migrant and refugee organizations of supra-local importance have two seats in Schleswig-Holstein. In Hesse, the representative of the advisory institutions for women has a seat.
  • In Hesse and Thuringia, one medical expert each , nominated by the State Medical Association , is a member of the commission. In Lower Saxony, a doctor working in the public health system with psychotherapeutic experience is appointed in agreement with the ministry responsible for health. Partly there are members of the state parliament (five in Hesse, one in Saarland), other persons who can be freely appointed by the Ministry of the Interior (one to three in North Rhine-Westphalia, two in Lower Saxony), two personalities from the state, one of whom is Islamic (Baden-Württemberg), and the chairman of the petitions committee of the state parliament (Thuringia) to the hardship commission.
  • In Bremen, a representative of the Islamic religious communities in Bremen takes part in the hardship commission.

Some federal states require knowledge of immigration and asylum law or experience in counseling or support for migrants and refugees as a prerequisite for membership in the hardship commission (Berlin, Brandenburg, Rhineland-Palatinate, North Rhine-Westphalia, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt) . Schleswig-Holstein aims to attract people to the Commission who themselves have a migration background . In some federal states it is required that the hardship commission should be made up of equal numbers of men and women (North Rhine-Westphalia, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein).

Hamburg occupies a special position in terms of its composition: it has completely refrained from considering expert bodies outside Parliament. The commission consists of one member of each parliamentary group and one representative of the interior senator without voting rights.

Independence in decision-making

In all federal states, the hardship commission decides independently of instructions on the basis of its own conviction. The independence and freedom of instruction are offset by the limited decision-making power: In the case of hardship, the hardship commission can only make a recommendation to the highest state authority (hardship request). She herself cannot grant a right of residence.

Right of application

The hardship commission acts exclusively on the basis of self- examination; The foreigner concerned does not have a formal right of application and notification. Only one member of the commission is entitled to bring a hardship case known to him to the plenary for discussion. This does not rule out that the foreigner concerned turns to the office of the hardship commission and asks to take care of his case. In Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and Lower Saxony this option is even expressly provided. In some cases, the express consent of the foreigner is required so that the Commission can act (Bremen, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Lower Saxony, Saarland, Saxony-Anhalt, Saxony, Thuringia). However, the foreigner has just as little entitlement to treatment as other persons (e.g. neighbors, friends, acquaintances) who stand up for his / her whereabouts.

Due to the extraordinary size of the hardship commission, the Hesse office and, in cases of doubt, a preliminary review committee consisting of three members has to decide in advance on the submission of a submission to the hardship commission. Obligatory or optional preliminary examination committees also exist in other federal states (Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Schleswig-Holstein).

All regulations stipulate that the foreigner can only apply to the hardship commission of the federal state in whose area the foreigners authority responsible for him lies. There is therefore no right to vote among the 16 hardship commissions.

Hearing the foreigner

There is no obligation to personally hear the foreigner in any federal state. Whether the commission decides on its hearing in individual cases is at its dutiful discretion . In Schleswig-Holstein it is expressly stipulated that the foreigner concerned and the responsible immigration authority can be heard. In Hesse and Saxony, the hardship commission has the general option of hearing people, not necessarily just the foreigner concerned. In Brandenburg an expert, in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, an expert with a special qualification for psychiatric or neurological diseases, psychotherapy or psychology can be called in in individual cases, who takes part in the meeting in an advisory capacity. The hardship commission must decide separately in each individual case whether third parties can take part in a consultation.

Public meetings

The hardship commission decides in non-public session. She's coming

  • with a simple majority of the members present (Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Schleswig-Holstein),
  • with a majority of the votes of the members entitled to vote (Bremen),
  • with a 2/3 majority of the members present (Berlin, Brandenburg, Rhineland-Palatinate),
  • with a 2/3 majority of the members entitled to vote (Bavaria, Hesse, Saxony-Anhalt, Saxony, Thuringia, Hamburg),
  • with a 2/3 majority of the members present, but at least with the majority of the members entitled to vote (Baden-Württemberg),
  • with at least five votes (Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania) or
  • with a 3/4 majority of the members entitled to vote (Saarland)

to the conclusion that a case of hardship can be assumed, she asks the Ministry of the Interior or the Senator for the Interior to issue a residence permit ( hardship request ). If the request for hardship is granted, an order is issued to the immigration authorities to issue a residence permit. The order can be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account whether the foreigner's livelihood is secured or a third person has undertaken to provide for the livelihood.

Special features of the state law in the procedure

There is a procedural peculiarity in North Rhine-Westphalia: Here, the hardship request is sent directly to the responsible immigration authority, which decides on its own authority whether to issue a residence permit.

In Saxony there is a special feature that the procedure in the hardship commission ends automatically after three months if no hardship case has been identified by then. The extension of the period by two more months is possible for an important reason.

Criteria for a hardship case

A case of hardship exists under federal law if, when all circumstances are considered as a whole, there are urgent humanitarian or personal reasons that justify the foreigner's continued presence in the federal territory . Such reasons can arise in particular from the level of linguistic, economic, cultural and social integration into German living conditions. The longer someone stays in the federal territory and is integrated into German society (be it for young foreigners through a well-advanced, successful school education, or for adults through many years of professional activity in addition to intensive social contacts with the German environment and good German language skills), the more rather, it will be unreasonable for him to return to his home country. When deciding on hardship cases, it will also have to be taken into account whether the foreigner is responsible for the reasons for the previously impossible termination of the stay.

Often, children born and / or raised in the federal territory who are in the phase of advanced school education are a reason to assume that they and (because of parental custody ) their parents will be in hardship. Sometimes there can be a case of hardship if one of several conditions for a right of residence is not met, but several others are met in a particularly pronounced form (so-called over-fulfillment ). It is also conceivable for claims that have to be present on a specific reference date (as in Section 104a of the Residence Act) to refrain from the reference date requirement by way of hardship if the requirements were not met for a short time (on the reference date ) but otherwise existed.

Personal circumstances are always required which put the person affected in a special situation compared to other foreigners who are obliged to leave the country . Health impairments (e.g. lack of treatment options in the country of origin) must already be taken into account in regular foreign official and judicial proceedings and can therefore only justify a hardship case in extreme special cases. The necessity resulting from the general obligation to return to return to the home country and to create a livelihood there again does not in itself constitute a case of hardship.

Because of the consistently existing confidentiality and the need for secrecy in the course of the consultation and the results, and because of the complexity of the life circumstances presented, the decision-making behavior of the hardship commission cannot be generally predicted. Individual cases for accepted hardship can be found in part in the annual activity reports of the hardship commissions.

Reasons for exclusion for a hardship case

Crimes committed

Only reasons for exclusion are regulated by law, if they exist a case of hardship ruled out from the outset. According to federal law, there is a reason for exclusion if the foreigner has committed offenses of considerable weight. When this is the case, the countries have defined differently:

Expulsion or reasons for expulsion

Instead, or in addition to this, many countries focus on whether the expulsion was or could have been pronounced because of a criminal offense , and refer to the expulsion regulations of the Residence Act . The Residence Act recognizes compulsory expulsion ( Section 53 AufenthG), standard expulsion ( Section 54 AufenthG) or discretionary deportation , taking into account all issues in favor and against ( Section 55 AufenthG):

  • In Baden-Württemberg and Hamburg satisfying mere existence of a designation reason , in Rheinland-Pfalz and Schleswig-Holstein have at least binding or regular expulsion reasons exist against the foreigners in Thuringia additionally satisfy some cases to a designation by discretion would entitle. A formal expulsion order from the immigration authorities is not required here; the mere possibility of expelling the foreigner is sufficient for the acceptance of a reason for exclusion.
  • In Bremen, every formally issued expulsion forms a reason for exclusion, in other countries only the mandatory or standard expulsion (Berlin, Brandenburg, North Rhine-Westphalia, Saarland, Saxony-Anhalt).
  • In Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania there is a reason for exclusion either in the case of an actually pronounced expulsion or in the case of criminal offenses that meet a reason for deportation according to Section 53 or Section 54 of the Residence Act.

A hardship case is also often excluded for people who are suspected of committing terrorist attacks (Baden-Württemberg, Brandenburg, Bremen, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saxony) and for whom a special deportation order has therefore been issued or might end up. The Bavarian regulation is similar: here, indications that the foreigner could pose a threat to internal security justify an exclusion of hardship cases.

Other reasons for exclusion

Additional reasons for exclusion are numerous and varied depending on the federal state. The acceptance of a hardship case is excluded, for example

  • for lectures with asylum-related content that is the responsibility of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein, Thuringia),
  • if, based on the previous length of stay, the livelihood was largely covered by public funds , although the foreigner was entitled and reasonably able to take up employment (Baden-Württemberg),
  • if there is an expectation that future subsistence cannot be secured from one's own resources (Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Hesse, Saxony) and there is no adequate health insurance coverage (Hesse, Saxony),
  • if there is an obviously abusive behavior that led to a delay in the termination of the stay, or if the passport requirement is not fulfilled , although the foreigner could reasonably receive a national passport (Bavaria),
  • if incorrect or incomplete information was provided in the context of the immigration or asylum procedure , or if the identity or nationality was deceived or reasonable requirements for removing obstacles to exit were not met (Brandenburg, similar to Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania),
  • if the obligation to cooperate under the law on foreign nationals has been or is repeatedly or grossly violated or if the foreigners authorities have been persistently deceived about circumstances that are significant in terms of residence law (Saxony-Anhalt),
  • if the foreigner is responsible for an obstacle to departure (Rhineland-Palatinate),
  • if there is an entry ban due to pronounced and / or completed deportation (Brandenburg, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate),
  • if the foreigner entered the country illegally, without a visa or with a visitor visa immediately prior to the application (Rhineland-Palatinate),
  • if the foreigner has been advertised to be searched (Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, North Rhine-Westphalia, Saxony-Anhalt, Thuringia) or to determine the whereabouts (Thuringia) or if his / her place of residence is unknown (Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Lower Saxony, Saxony) or if he has none in the state has a proper place of residence or no address for service (North Rhine-Westphalia) or is no longer in possession of a Duldung (Saarland),
  • if a return date has already been set (Brandenburg, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia) or detention pending deportation has been ordered (Lower Saxony) or if a scheduled return date has passed and the immigration authority had previously informed the hardship commission (Lower Saxony)
  • if the case has already been dealt with in the hardship commission (Bavaria, Saxony) without the factual and legal situation on which the previous decision was based having subsequently changed in favor of the foreigner (Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Lower Saxony, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saxony, Thuringia ) or no significantly new submissions can be identified (Baden-Württemberg, Schleswig-Holstein).

The Hamburg state law does not list any special reasons for exclusion.

Refusal of the reason for exclusion in individual cases

In some federal states, the reasons for exclusion are partially (Baden-Württemberg, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein) or in general (Bavaria, Hesse) only regularly designed. This means that the Commission has scope to deviate from the rule for exclusion in individual cases if there are atypical circumstances that deviate from the normal case and require an exception.

Effects on residence law during the examination procedure

In principle, pending hardship proceedings do not prevent the completion of the obligation to leave the country. Submitting an application to the Hardship Commission does not constitute a legal obstacle to deportation i. S. v. Section 60a subsection 2 of the Residence Act. Similar to petitions , however, the respective interior ministry can order the immigration authorities to refrain from deporting the foreigner while the hardship commission is being dealt with. Some regulations on the hardship commission even oblige, under more detailed conditions, to suspend the deportation for the duration of the procedure (Baden-Württemberg, Berlin, Brandenburg, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Lower Saxony, Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein).

Judicial review of the decision

According to the will of the legislature, the authorization to grant residence is exclusively in the public interest and does not justify the foreigner's own rights. This and the exclusion of an individual application right prevents an administrative procedure from getting under way, the result of which would be subject to administrative control by the administrative court due to the guarantee of legal recourse in Article 19 (4) of the Basic Law . The decisions of the hardship commission are therefore always final and not justiciable. Because of the lack of judicial reviewability, the proceedings before the hardship commission have the character of a mercy .

Alternatives to the hardship commission

The foreigner is not barred from calling on the petition committee of the respective state parliament in addition to the hardship commission ( Art. 17 GG or the corresponding provisions of the state constitutions). However, petition procedures and simultaneous action by the hardship commission are excluded in some federal states (Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Hesse, Lower Saxony). In Saxony, the hardship commission no longer decides when a petition procedure is taking place or has taken place.

Before the hardship commissions were set up, the possibility of a petition was often the last resort to prevent the obligation to leave the country after the legal process had been exhausted. However, the Petitions Committee is bound by the existing legal situation and cannot make a decision that deviates from this; But this is precisely what the hardship commission can do. Often, petitions motivated by residence rights are sent to the respective Ministry of the Interior with the request to inform the petitioner about the factual and legal situation. This is usually followed by a letter that summarizes the residence biography and closes with the comment that the decision of the immigration authority is not objectionable.

In contrast to the decisions of the hardship commission, petition notices are justiciable to a small extent. Because the petitioner has the right to a factual decision on his petition. In the case of refusal, the decision on the matter can be enforced by an administrative court.

Cases of hardship in numbers

The hardship commissions are obliged to submit annual activity reports, some of which are published on the websites of the interior ministries.

  • So were z. In Bavaria, for example, 132 cases (280 people) were brought to the commission in 2009, of which 56 cases (113 people) were taken up by the hardship commission. In 51 cases they resulted in a hardship application. All hardship requests were granted by the Bavarian State Ministry of the Interior.
  • In Baden-Württemberg , 92 cases were brought to the hardship commission in 2009, of which 73 cases were discussed. A hardship request was made in 43 cases. The Ministry of the Interior complied with the request in 40 of the 43 cases; the remaining three cases are still open.
  • In Hesse , according to information from the Hessian Ministry of the Interior to the Hessian State Parliament, 266 people received a residence permit in 103 cases between 2005 and the end of 2009. The Ministry of the Interior only refused to issue an order to the immigration authorities in five cases, four of them because of a lack of livelihood security and one because of delinquency.
  • In Lower Saxony , 141 cases were brought to the commission in 2009, 111 of which were discussed. A decision was made in 32 cases; Of these, 27 cases led to the filing of a hardship case. The Ministry of the Interior has already decided on 15 hardship requests and granted them all. The remaining cases are still open.

The figures show that a right of residence is granted in the vast majority of cases as soon as the hardship commission decides to file a hardship case .

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Background: Peter Münch, The Hardship Commission - once reviled, respected today , in: The Lord creates justice and law, Festschrift for Hans Engel , Foedus-Verlag 2000, p. 137.
  2. ↑ Section 25, Paragraph 5 of the Residence Act, cf. BT-Drs. 15/420 , p. 13 and p. 80 ( boundary ), PDF.
  3. ↑ Section 23 a of the Residence Act, cf. BT-Drs. 15/3479 , p. 4, PDF
  4. ↑ Legal provisions of the federal states (as of September 30, 2013):
    Baden-Württemberg : Ordinance of the state government on the establishment of a hardship commission according to Section 23a of the Residence Act (Hardship Commission Ordinance - HFKomVO) of June 28, 2005 (Journal of Laws p. 455), most recently amended by regulation v. April 17, 2012 (Journal of Laws p. 212).
    Bavaria : Ordinance on the establishment of a hardship commission in accordance with § 23 a of the Residence Act (Hardship Commission Ordinance - HFKomV) of August 8, 2006 (GVBl. P. 436), amended by ordinance v. November 20, 2007 (GVBl. P. 791).
    Berlin : Ordinance on the establishment of a hardship commission according to § 23 a of the Residence Act (Hardship Commission Ordinance - HFKV) of January 3, 2005 (GVBl. P. 11), amended by ordinance of April 22, 2009 (GVBl. P. 246).
    Brandenburg : Ordinance on the establishment of a hardship commission according to § 23 a of the Residence Act (Hardship Commission Ordinance - HFKV) of January 17, 2005 (GVBl. II p. 46), amended by ordinance of October 5, 2006 (GVBl. II p. 246) and by ordinance of 23 September 2009 (GVBl. II p. 709).
    Bremen : Ordinance on the hardship commission according to the Residence Act of 5 June 2012 (Journal of Laws p. 270).
    Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania : State ordinance on the establishment of a hardship commission (hardship commission state ordinance - HFKLVO MV) of 25 February 2005 (GVOBl. P. 84), amended by ordinance of 30 November 2009 (GVOBl. P. 679).
    Lower Saxony : Ordinance on the hardship commission in Lower Saxony according to the Residence Act (Lower Saxony Hardship Commission Ordinance - NHärerKVO) of 6 August 2006 (GVBl. P. 426), last amended by ordinance of 2 September 2013 (Nds. GVBl. No. 16, p. 228). /> North Rhine-Westphalia : Ordinance on the establishment of a hardship commission according to § 23 a of the Residence Act and the regulation of the procedure (Hardship Commission Ordinance - HFKVO -) of December 14, 2004 (GV.NRW. P. 820), last amended by the ordinance of 3. November 2009 (GV.NRW. P. 561).
    Rhineland-Palatinate : State ordinance on the establishment of a hardship commission in accordance with Section 23 a of the Residence Act (Hardship Commission Ordinance) of April 5, 2011 (GVBl. P. 95).
    Saarland : Ordinance on a hardship commission of the Saarland according to § 23 a of the law on the residence, employment and integration of foreigners in the federal territory (Hardship Commission Ordinance - HKV -) of December 14, 2004 (Official Journal p. 2659), amended by ordinance of September 15, 2009 (Official Journal p. 1568).
    Saxony : Ordinance of the Saxon State Government on the Hardship Commission under the Residence Act (Saxon Hardship Commission Ordinance - SächsHFKVO) of 6 July 2010 (GVBl. P. 226).
    Saxony-Anhalt : Hardship Commission Ordinance (HFK-VO) of March 9, 2005 (GVBl. P. 136), amended by ordinance of April 21, 2009 (GVBl. P. 224).
    Schleswig-Holstein : State ordinance regulating the tasks and responsibilities of the immigration authorities and the admission of ethnic repatriates and foreign refugees and the establishment and procedure of a hardship commission (foreigners and admission ordinance - AuslAufnVO) of January 19, 2000 (GVOBl. P. 101), amended by ordinance of 11 January 2005 (GVOBl. P. 9).
    Thuringia : Thuringian ordinance on the hardship commission of January 5, 2005 (GVBl. P. 1), amended by ordinance of December 8, 2009 (GVBl. P. 778).
  5. ↑ Legal provisions of the federal states (as of July 31, 2012):
    Hamburg : Hamburg law on the hardship commission according to § 23 a of the Residence Act (HCDC) of May 4, 2005 (GVBl. P. 190), amended by law of 26. May 2009 (GVBl. P. 160).
    Hesse : Law on the establishment of a hardship commission (Hardship Commission Act - HEdA) of September 30, 2008 (GVBl. I p. 842), amended by the law of December 14, 2009 (GVBl. I p. 642).
  6. ↑ Justification of the Federal Government for lifting the time limit in BT-Drs. 16/10288 , pp. 8 and 11, PDF
  7. ↑ BT-Drs. 16/10288 , p. 11, PDF.
  8. ↑ Art. 2 of the Labor Migration Control Act of December 20, 2008 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 2846).
  9. ↑ Section 58 (2) sentence 2 of the Residence Act.
  10. ↑ Section 23a, subsection 2, sentence 2 of the Residence Act.
  11. ↑ § 4 Paragraph 2 MecklVHhartfKV, Paragraph 4 Paragraph 1 Clause 2 NHäneKVO.
  12. ↑ Section 23 a subs. 2 sentence 3 of the Residence Act.
  13. ↑ § 3 Paragraph 2, 5 Paragraph 4, 6 a Paragraph 3 HessHärtfG.
  14. ↑ Section 23 a subs. 1 sentence 2 of the Residence Act.
  15. ↑ § 7 NRWHhartfKV.
  16. ↑ § 4 Para. 4 No. 4 SächsHhartfKV.
  17. ↑ Section 23a, Paragraph 2, Sentence 4 of the Residence Act.
  18. ↑ As expressly § 2 sentence 2 SächsHFKVO.
  19. ↑ z. B. Activity report hardship commission Baden-Württemberg 2009  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , Pp. 7-9. PDF doc. 49 KB.@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www.innenministerium.baden-wuerttemberg.de  
  20. ↑ Section 23a, Paragraph 1, Sentence 3 of the Residence Act.
  21. ↑ § 53 Abs. 1 BZRG i. V. with Section 32 (2) No. 5 BZRG.
  22. ↑ Section 58a of the Residence Act.
  23. ^ So OVG Saarlouis, decision of February 1, 2007 - 2 W 37/06 - .
  24. ↑ Section 23 a subs. 1 sentence 4 of the Residence Act.
  25. ↑ Section 9 of the HessHärtfKG expressly stipulates that decisions by the hardship commission are not subject to judicial review.
  26. ↑ So explicitly VG Oldenburg, decision of November 22, 2010 - 11 B 3094/10 - , PDF doc. 239 KB.
  27. ↑ Activity report Hardship Commission Bavaria 2009  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , Pp. 11/12 and 15, PDF-Doc 83 KB.@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www.stmi.bayern.de  
  28. ↑ Activity report on the hardship commission Baden-Württemberg 2009 , p. 9/10. PDF doc. 61 KB, accessed September 14, 2012.
  29. ↑ Hess. LT-Drs. 18/2604 BC August 6, 2010 PDF doc. 67 KB.
  30. ↑ Activity report hardship commission Lower Saxony 2009 , p. 28. PDF doc. 118 KB; Current activity reports can be found on the website of the Lower Saxony Ministry of the Interior.

See also

Web links

Compilation of all laws and regulations of the federal states via the hardship commissions at www.migrationsrecht.net, PDF-Doc. 821 KB