Generelle Tatsachen in der verwaltungsgerichtlichen Rechtsprechung

So-called general facts do not only concern the case at hand that a judge must decide. Rather, they are relevant for a large number of cases and concern macro issues related to natural sciences, economics or social sciences. These general facts are a challenge for judicial decision-making by administrative courts. They raise several fundamental questions about the function and performance capacity of administrative courts; about legal methodology and the (inter)disciplinary practice of the courts; and about the general approach of administrative courts to empirical issues. Against this background, this article identifies and analyses - after an introduction to the concept of general facts and the relevance of this category of facts for the subfields of public law - the deficits in the administrative courts' handling of general facts. Three deficits are addressed. First, administrative judges handle general facts often only intuitively and with insufficient empirical foundation, in particular when social science issues are at stake. Second, there are deficits with regard to the burden of proof and the determination of evidence due to a lack of adequate legal rules that take into account the particularities of general facts. Third, general facts pose challenges in the appeal process, challenges to which relates the new possibility for an appeal on a question of fact pursuant to Section 78 (8) of the Asylum Act. Based on the analysis of these deficits, the article closes by making suggestions for possible reforms of the administrative court's handling of general facts.