Definition and Legal Nature of the Reiterative Order
The reiterative order is a term under German administrative law and refers to an administrative act that reestablishes a previously issued ruling by way of a new administrative act with identical content, without any underlying legal or factual changes. The reiterative order primarily serves to clarify and solidify the existing legal relationship between the authority and the recipient. It is particularly relevant in the context of the Administrative Procedures Act (VwVfG) and is distinguished from other types of administrative acts, such as repeat, modifying, or revoking administrative acts.
Legal Basis and Distinction from Similar Administrative Acts
Statutory Classification
The reiterative order is not expressly defined by statute but arises from the systematics of administrative procedure and the theory of administrative acts. The basis for this can be found in sections 35 et seq. VwVfG. Its legal nature and effect are particularly shaped by legal commentaries and case law.
Distinction from a Repeat Administrative Act
A repeat administrative act differs from a reiterative order in that the underlying facts or legal situation have changed, prompting the administrative authority to react to a modified starting point. In contrast, the reiterative order merely reaffirms a previously made decision without any change in facts or legal situation.
Difference from Confirmation and Mere Declarations of Knowledge
The reiterative order must be distinguished from the so-called “confirmation” and from mere declarations of knowledge. While confirmation (section 129 BGB by analogy) merely attests to the existence of an already issued administrative act and does not contain an independent regulation, the reiterative order expresses a renewed intention to set rules, identical in content. A mere declaration of knowledge, such as information, on the other hand, does not contain a regulation and therefore does not qualify as an administrative act.
Effects and Legal Consequences of the Reiterative Order
No New Appeal Deadline
An essential feature of the reiterative order is that it does not trigger a new deadline for objections or legal remedies. Because the administration merely repeats, but does not newly issue or amend, the original decision, the original deadline remains relevant. A newly issued order with identical content therefore cannot trigger a new period for filing a claim, objection, or appeal.
Binding Effect
The reiterative order confirms the current legal situation and has a clarifying effect for the recipient. Nevertheless, it does not create any independent new substantive content. The binding effect continues to arise from the original administrative act, not from the reiterative order.
Procedural Treatment
In litigation, a reiterative order cannot generally be challenged separately, provided that it contains no new substantive content. The court will always refer to the legality of the initial order. Only if the reiterative order contains additional provisions or conditions may an independent challenge or particular procedural relevance arise.
Practical Significance and Typical Applications
Administrative Procedure
In practice, reiterative orders typically occur when recipients, after the deadline for legal remedies has expired, file a renewed application for review of the original order. The authority then often issues another administrative act, identical in content to the original notice. The purpose of this approach is usually to clarify that the authority’s legal opinion remains unchanged.
Other Areas of Application
Reiterative orders may occur, for example, in the areas of public construction law, social law (e.g., in connection with benefits under the Social Code), or regulatory law. In particular, if repeated applications are made and the facts remain persistent and unchanged, authorities regularly resort to this form of administrative act.
Legal Remedies and Impact for Affected Parties
Options for Legal Defense
Since a reiterative order does not establish a new regulation but merely restates an existing decision, the options for legal protection are limited. A renewed objection or claim against a reiterative order is generally inadmissible, unless it contains deviations or expanded provisions compared to the original order.
Effects in Case of Missed Legal Remedies Deadlines
If the recipient of an administrative act has missed the deadline for objections, the reiterative order does not create a new legal remedy. The original deadline remains determinative, so that a later challenge to the initial decision is generally precluded.
Literature and Further References
- Administrative Procedures Act (VwVfG), Sections 35-42
- Kopp/Ramsauer, VwVfG, Commentary
- Schoch/Schneider, Administrative Law, Volume I – Fundamentals of Administrative Law
- BVerwG, Judgment from 26.06.1980 – 3 C 90.78
Summary
The reiterative order is an administrative act by which an authority reissues an existing, unchanged decision with identical content. Its purpose is clarification and it confirms the previous administrative practice. In legal terms, it does not have its own binding effect, does not trigger new legal remedy periods, and generally cannot be challenged independently. Knowledge of the legal particularities of the reiterative order is of central importance for the assessment of administrative law cases.
Frequently Asked Questions
What conditions must be met for the issuance of a reiterative order?
Generally, a reiterative order requires that an order with identical content has previously been issued to the same recipient. It does not matter whether the original order has become final or has been contested; what matters is that the new order has identical regulatory content. Another requirement is that there have been no significant changes to the legal or factual circumstances since the issuance of the original order. The issuing authority must review whether and to what extent the decisive facts and legal situation have changed and, if there are substantial changes, must make a new, independent decision where required. It must also be reviewed whether the requirements for a reiterative order in the specific administrative context are permitted by special statutory provisions or general principles of administrative law, especially in terms of expediency and legal clarity.
What is the objective of issuing a reiterative order from a legal perspective?
The main objective of a reiterative order is to reaffirm and enforce an already existing administrative intention without making a materially new decision. This allows the authority to repeat an earlier order with identical regulatory content, particularly to create legal clarity, restart deadlines, prepare enforcement measures, or counter formal legal objections from a possible remedy procedure. The reiterative order confirms the original administrative decision without making a new substantive decision and can, where necessary, be adapted to current formal or procedural requirements.
Are legal remedies possible against a reiterative order?
In principle, the same legal remedies are available against a reiterative order as against the original order, as long as the original is not final. The reiterative order constitutes an independent administrative act and gives the affected person the opportunity for (renewed) challenge if the statutory requirements are met. However, special aspects must be taken into account: If an effective legal remedy has already been filed against the initial order, under certain circumstances this can also be extended to the reiterative order. If a reiterative order is issued regarding an initial order that has already become final, this can, in some cases, render the legal remedy inadmissible (e.g., due to lack of grievance). The exact outcome depends on the individual case and the specific procedural requirements.
Does the duty to give reasons for a reiterative order differ from that of the original order?
The obligation to give reasons for a reiterative order is legally limited. According to section 39 (2) no. 2 VwVfG, a justification is not necessary if an authority repeats an order without deviating from the reasoning of the initial order and the recipient knew or could easily have known the reasons for the decision. In this case, it suffices for the reiterative order to refer to the reasons given in the original order. However, deviations in the legal or factual assessment require an independent, complete reasoning pursuant to the general requirements for administrative acts.
What is the practical significance of the reiterative order in administrative law?
In administrative law, the reiterative order is mainly used when doubts exist regarding the formal validity of the original order or when procedural reasons necessitate the issuance of a further order, for instance, to preserve deadlines or prepare enforcement. It also serves to clarify and specify existing regulations, particularly if interim uncertainty as to the effectiveness or delivery of the initial order has arisen. In cases involving procedural errors that can be rectified after the fact, the reiterative order is frequently used. Its use prevents legal uncertainty and creates transparency for all parties regarding the applicable legal situation.
Can a reiterative order be revoked or modified independently?
A reiterative order, like any administrative act, can be independently revoked or modified in accordance with the relevant provisions (see sections 48, 49 VwVfG). The authority’s power to withdraw depends on the general principles of administrative act law, irrespective of whether it concerns an initial or a reiterative order. Modification or revocation is particularly conceivable if significant circumstances subsequently change, a legal basis ceases to exist, or new findings (for example, through a court judgment) are obtained. Such measures usually affect both the reiterative and the original order, provided the latter remains valid.
What procedural risks are associated with the improper issuance of a reiterative order?
The improper issuance of a reiterative order can involve various procedural risks. On the one hand, an inadmissible or insufficiently reasoned reiteration can conflict with the principle of finality, leading to the inadmissibility of a legal remedy against it. Furthermore, there is a risk that deadlines—for instance, for action or objection—may be unnecessarily started or extended, which the administrative court procedure could consider as an abuse of law. If the order is flawed, this may lead to the unlawfulness of the measure, potentially resulting in compensation claims or cases of official liability. Improper use also undermines confidence in the reliability of official decisions and can unduly restrict the legal protection of those affected.
