Administrative Rehabilitation Act

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Basic data
Title: Law on the repeal of unlawful administrative decisions in the accession area and the subsequent claims linked to them
Short title: Administrative Rehabilitation Act
Abbreviation: VwRehaG
Type: Federal law
Scope: Federal Republic of Germany
Legal matter: Social law
References : 254-1
Original version from: June 23, 1994
( BGBl. I p. 1311 )
Entry into force on: July 1, 1994
Last revision from: July 1, 1997
( BGBl. I p. 1620 )
Entry into force of the
new version on: 		5th July 1997
Last change by: Art. 13 G of December 12, 2019
( Federal Law Gazette I p. 2652, 2696 )
Effective date of the
last change: 		January 1, 2024
(Art. 60 G of December 12, 2019)
GESTA : G026
Weblink: Text of the law
Please note the note on the applicable legal version.

The Administrative Rehabilitation Act (VwRehaG), together with the Occupational Rehabilitation Act, also the Second SED Unlaws Clearance Act , regulates the rehabilitation and compensation for administrative measures contrary to the rule of law from the period from May 8, 1945 to October 2, 1990 in the Soviet zone of occupation and the GDR , which - In contrast to the Penal Rehabilitation Act - are not of a criminal nature and are not aimed at detention.

requirements

The prerequisites for an administrative rehabilitation are regulated in § 1 VwRehaG:

  • It must be an administrative decision, i.e. an official decision to regulate an individual case. This also includes a police "stop - stand still!" and a (warning) shot .
  • The administrative decision must have led to damage to health, financial loss or an occupational disadvantage. According to § 1a VwRehaG, rehabilitation can exceptionally also be carried out without fulfilling this requirement if the administrative decision has led to a serious degradation of the person concerned in his personal life.
  • The administrative decision must be absolutely incompatible with the fundamental principles of a constitutional state and its consequences must continue to have a difficult and unreasonable effect. In the event of the forced relocation of people from the border area near the inner-German border ( Verge Action ), it is legally assumed that this measure is absolutely incompatible with the fundamental principles of a constitutional state, otherwise this requirement must be assessed according to the specifics of the individual case.
  • It cannot be a decision in the area of ​​tax law.
  • Nor may it be a question of the expropriation of property on the territory of the GDR (the law regulating open property issues applies here ).
  • It must also not be a decision on the payment of an "honorary pension" for fighters against fascism and those persecuted by the Nazi regime .

Applicants can for example be victims of arbitrary measures by the Ministry for State Security ( Stasi victims ).

Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation takes place only on application by repealing or establishing that the administrative measure in question is illegal. It is a prerequisite for further claims ( Section 2 VwRehaG). Since the amendment to the law of November 22, 2019, applications can be made for an unlimited period (amended Section 9 VwRehaG).

All eastern German federal states have set up special rehabilitation authorities for the rehabilitation of administrative decisions, which are responsible for processing these cases. In principle, the rehabilitation authority of the country on whose territory the administrative decision was made is responsible; if several countries are responsible, the first authority decides. ( Section 12 VwRehaG) As in court, witnesses and experts are obliged to testify before the authorities. ( Section 13 VwRehaG) The procedure is generally free of charge, unless the application was obviously unfounded. ( § 14 VwRehaG)

If the applicant does not agree with the decision of the rehabilitation authority, he can file an objection. If this does not lead to success either, the applicant can take legal action in the courts of administrative jurisdiction . An appeal against judgments of the administrative court does not take place, only an appeal is possible if the administrative court allows this or the federal administrative court grants a non-admission complaint. ( § 16 VwRehaG)

Subsequent claims

The rehabilitation justifies claims in the corresponding application of the Federal Supply Act ( § 2 Abs. 1, §§ 3 ff. VwRehaG).

  • In the event of damage to health due to the administrative measure, the applicant himself receives compensation, but also survivors if the applicant has died as a result of the administrative decision. ( Section 4 VwRehaG, see also Section 18 (4) and (5) StrRehaG)
  • If the administrative decision results in the deprivation of an asset, the applicant receives a notification from the rehabilitation authority with which he can submit an application for compensation to the competent authority in accordance with the Property Act. If the administrative decision leads to a decrease in the value of a property, the applicant can give up the property and claim financial compensation instead; the property, including all encumbrances, is then transferred to the federal state in which the property is located. ( § 7 VwRehaG)
  • If the administrative decision has led to an occupational disadvantage, the applicant receives benefits under the Occupational Rehabilitation Act .
  • Upon request, there is a one-time benefit of 1,500 euros for holders of a certificate in accordance with Section 1a VwRehaG if no (other) compensation payments have been granted or will be granted in the future due to the same circumstances ( Section 2 (4) sentence 9 VwRehaG).

Evidence requirements

The recognition of the consequences of damage presupposes a three-pronged causal chain. A sovereign measure according to § 1 Abs. 1 VwRehaG (1st link) must have led to a primary damage (2nd link), which in turn causes the asserted damage consequences (3rd link). The three links of the causal chain must be proven in full evidence, ie with a probability bordering on certainty. In contrast, it is sufficient for the twofold causal relationship of the three links if this is given with sufficient probability. The requirement of proof of sufficient probability applies both to the area of ​​liability-establishing causality and that of liability-filling causality. This corresponds to the proof requirements in other areas of social compensation or social insurance, in particular the related statutory accident insurance. The assessment of the connection follows, as in the rest of the supply law, the theory of the essential condition .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ BSG, judgment of March 25, 2004 - B 9 VS 1/02 R
  2. ↑ e.g. a triggered self-shot system, BVerwG, judgment of July 24, 2019 - BVerwG 8 C 1.19
  3. ↑ BSG, judgment of December 15, 1999 - B 9 VS 2/98 R
  4. ↑ BayLSG, judgment of November 19, 2014 - L 15 VU 1/10