{"id":5643,"date":"2021-03-15T13:27:22","date_gmt":"2021-03-15T13:27:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/?p=5643"},"modified":"2025-06-13T10:50:15","modified_gmt":"2025-06-13T10:50:15","slug":"auslaenderrecht-die-erfolgreiche-berufung-im-auslaenderrecht-setzt-einen-zulassungsgrund-voraus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/immigration-law-a-successful-appeal-in-immigration-law-requires-a-ground-for-admission\/","title":{"rendered":"Immigration Law: A successful appeal in immigration law requires a ground for admission."},"content":{"rendered":"

Administrative Court of Munich, Decision of April 2, 2020, File No.: 10 ZB 19.1552<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the field of immigration law, which is part of administrative law, if a negative judgment is rendered, there is still the possibility to file an application for admission of an appeal, which is decided by the Higher Administrative Court.<\/p>\n

In the present case, the plaintiff filed an application for the admission of an appeal, which was deemed admissible but rejected as unfounded because the grounds for admission presented by the plaintiff were insufficient. Serious doubts about the correctness of the contested judgment (\u00a7 124 Abs. 2 No. 1 VwGO) as well as a fundamental significance of the legal issue (\u00a7 124 Abs. 2 No. 3 VwGO) or a divergence (\u00a7 124 Abs. 2 No. 4 VwGO) could not be established.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Facts of the Case:<\/span><\/h2>\n

The Administrative Court of Munich had denied the plaintiff\u2019s claim for the issuance of a residence permit (regardless of the purpose of stay), as he was not eligible for a residence permit under \u00a7 11 Abs. 1 AufenthG, and there was also a deportation interest under \u00a7 5 Abs. 1 No. 2 AufenthG.<\/p>\n

On November 30, 2011, an oral hearing took place, during which the plaintiff withdrew his lawsuit. As a result, he was deported by a decision of July 18, 2011, which became final on November 30, 2011. The plaintiff has not yet left the country, which is why the three-year ban on entry and stay set in No. 3 of the decision of July 18, 2011, has not yet expired.<\/p>\n

The oral hearing on November 30, 2011, did not result in anything different, during which a probationary tolerance was agreed upon with a probationary period of five years.<\/p>\n

A condition for this tolerance was, among other things, \u201eproof of lawfulness\u201c (No. 1). The defendant had granted the probationary tolerance only on the condition that all criminally relevant proceedings were known to them, including any pending criminal proceedings or actions not yet detected by the prosecuting authorities.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Criminal Convictions of the Plaintiff<\/span><\/h3>\n

The plaintiff, however, concealed that from September 30, 2009, to March 31, 2011, he had issued a total of 122 false invoices and thus unlawfully obtained between \u20ac30,000 and \u20ac35,000. The corresponding criminal investigations were initiated during the agreed five-year probationary period on May 12, 2014. The criminal judgment of the Augsburg Regional Court, in which the plaintiff was convicted of forgery in 18 cases and sentenced to a total prison term of one year and eleven months, was not issued until June 14, 2017, i.e., after the probationary period had expired. The Administrative Court of Munich ruled that the criminal judgment issued after the probationary period did not play a role in this context. The plaintiff argued that he had met the requirement of No. 1 because the crimes were not discovered by the Administrative Court at the time of the agreement on probationary tolerance and he had no obligation to disclose them. Additionally, he had not committed any further crimes after the conclusion of the agreement.<\/p>\n

Another condition for the probationary tolerance agreed upon in the oral hearing of November 30, 2011, was \u201efreedom from debt to the public authorities\u201c (No. 4).<\/p>\n

<\/span>Tax Debts of the Plaintiff in the Amount of \u20ac200,000:<\/span><\/h3>\n

The Augsburg Regional Court established with its criminal judgment of June 14, 2017, that the plaintiff had tax debts amounting to \u20ac200,000. The Administrative Court of Munich therefore ruled that there was another reason for refusal under \u00a7 5 Abs. 1 No. 2 AufenthG, according to which no deportation interest should exist. However, since the plaintiff had been sentenced to a prison term of one year and eleven months, a serious deportation interest according to \u00a7 54 Abs. 2 No. 1 AufenthG was present. Due to his repeated crimes, there was also the danger that he would commit further offenses and uncover additional sources of criminal relevance. There is currently a criminal investigation against his wife and him for terrorism financing and money laundering. There was no atypical exceptional case that would require a departure from the regular granting requirements. The plaintiff\u2019s family situation (wife and four minor children) had been sufficiently considered with his tolerance under \u00a7 60a AufenthG, also taking into account Article 6 GG and Article 8 ECHR.<\/p>\n

The plaintiff argued against the Administrative Court that he was unaware of the tax debts of \u20ac200,000 as the tax authorities had not yet approached him and no significant documents were available.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Judgment of the Administrative Court of Munich:<\/span><\/h2>\n

Judgment of the Administrative Court of Munich:<\/p>\n

<\/span>The Administrative Court of Munich ruled that the lawsuit was admissible but unfounded.<\/span><\/h3>\n

To admit an appeal, there must be serious doubts about the correctness of the judgment in the sense of \u00a7 124 Abs. 2 No. 1 VwGO. This is the case if the plaintiff had questioned a single significant legal statement or an important factual finding of the first court with persuasive counterarguments (BVerfG, B.v. 10.9.2009 \u2013 1 BvR 814\/09 \u2013 juris Rn. 11; B.v. 9.6.2016 \u2013 1 BvR 2453\/12 \u2013 juris Rn. 16; B.v. 8.5.2019 \u2013 2 BvR 657\/19 \u2013 juris Rn. 33).<\/p>\n

However, the Administrative Court of Munich ruled that this was not the case, as the plaintiff had not questioned the core assumption of the Administrative Court, that the issuance of a residence permit was obstructed by the final deportation order of the defendant dated July 18, 2011, with persuasive counterarguments. The representative of the defendant had only stated in the oral hearing before the Administrative Court on November 30, 2011: \u201cThe defendant is willing, against the withdrawal of the lawsuit and under the following additional conditions, to grant the plaintiff repeatedly (for each year) probationary tolerances, which also permit employment, for a period of five years: \u2026 (The conditions No. 1 to 4 follow, which the plaintiff must prove before each extension of the tolerance).\u201d No further regulation or assurance regarding the deportation order and the issuance of a residence permit had been made according to the clear and unambiguous wording of this statement. The VGH Munich further stated that even if one were to interpret the procedural declaration of the defendant of November 30, 2011, in accordance with \u00a7\u00a7 133, 157 BGB to mean that it would not adhere to its deportation order after the expiration of the probationary period of five years under the four conditions mentioned in the declaration, this would not result in a claim for the issuance of a residence permit. The VGH Munich thus reaffirmed the decision of the Administrative Court that the plaintiff had not fulfilled either the requirement of No. 1 \u201cproof of lawfulness (intentional crimes)\u201d or No. 4 \u201cproof of freedom from debt to the public authorities.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/span>According to the Court, the Plaintiff Did Not Provide Proof of Lawfulness:<\/span><\/h3>\n

The plaintiff had not provided proof of lawfulness as he was convicted by the Augsburg Regional Court on June 14, 2017, which became final on June 22, 2017, for forgery to a prison sentence of one year and eleven months (suspended with a probationary period of four years). Regardless of whether the plaintiff should have indicated these then-not-yet-charged crimes (forgeries) due to their possible relevance for a probationary tolerance at the time of the agreement in the oral hearing before the Administrative Court on November 30, 2011, it was ultimately decisive that the plaintiff was again convicted of intentional crimes after the agreement. It was also irrelevant that the plaintiff had committed the crimes before the oral hearing on November 30, 2011, and the corresponding procedural declarations of the parties. The VGH ruled that the Administrative Court was right in pointing out that in a \u201cprobationary tolerance,\u201d where the authority suspends the execution of the deportation connected with an expulsion for a fixed period under certain conditions to give the affected person the opportunity for probation and thus a basis for further (legal) stay, it is crucial that no further deportation reasons or interests (cf. \u00a7 54 AufenthG) exist or arise. The criminal judgment of the Augsburg Regional Court of June 14, 2017, was exactly the case in this respect.<\/p>\n

According to the VGH Munich, the Administrative Court\u2019s view that the requirement of \u201eproof of freedom from debt to the public authorities\u201c under No. 4 was not met, was also legally unobjectionable. The plaintiff\u2019s objection that he was \u201cunaware\u201d of the tax debts of \u20ac200,000 mentioned in the criminal judgment of June 14, 2017, and that the tax authorities had not yet \u201capproached\u201d him, thus denying these debts, overlooked his proof obligation established in this requirement.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Ban on Issuing a Residence Permit:<\/span><\/h3>\n

Since in this case the ban on issuing a permit under \u00a7 11 Abs. 1 AufenthG was already applicable, it was no longer relevant to decide whether the deportation interest indicated by the criminal conviction of June 14, 2017 (\u00a7 54 Abs. 2 No. 1 AufenthG) still existed and whether there might be an atypical case requiring an exception from this regular granting requirement (\u00a7 5 Abs. 1 No. 2 AufenthG).<\/p>\n

Another reason to admit an appeal is the fundamental legal significance (\u00a7 124 Abs. 2 No. 3 VwGO).<\/p>\n

The presentation of the fundamental significance of the legal issue requires that there is a specific, yet case-overarching legal or factual question that is significant for the decision of the Administrative Court, whose pending clarification by a higher court in the appeal process is expected and seems necessary for maintaining the consistency of the case law or for a significant development of the law. Accordingly, the presentation (\u00a7 124a Abs. 4 Sentence 4 VwGO) of fundamental significance requires that a concrete legal or factual question be formulated and shown why the question is significant for the consistency of the case law or the development of the law; furthermore, it must be demonstrated what the general, beyond the individual case, significance of this question is (cf. BayVGH, B.v. 8.2.2019 \u2013 10 ZB 18.1768 \u2013 Rn. 11; B.v. 14.2.2019 \u2013 10 ZB 18.1967 \u2013 juris Rn. 10; Happ in Eyermann, VwGO, 15th ed. 2019, \u00a7 124a Rn. 72).<\/p>\n

<\/span>Plaintiff\u2019s Admission Application Was Insufficient:<\/span><\/h3>\n

The admission application did not meet these requirements, as it did not demonstrate that the question of the binding effect of an agreement concerning lawfulness in the present case had fundamental legal significance due to the lack of higher court decisions. Even the formulation of the question aimed at the case-specific interpretation of a procedural declaration. No further clarification need was shown.<\/p>\n

The requirements for the presentation of a divergence (\u00a7 124 Abs. 2 No. 4 VwGO) were also not met by the grounds for admission. This requires that a substantively determined, legally or factually significant statement that supports the contested decision is identified, which deviates from a similarly significant statement established in the case law of a higher court using the same legal provision (cf. Happ in Eyermann, VwGO, 15th ed. 2019, \u00a7 124a Rn. 73 m.w.N.). The divergent statements must be compared so that the deviation is evident (stRspr, cf. BayVGH, B.v. 22.3.2019 \u2013 10 ZB 18.2598 \u2013 juris Rn. 18; B.v. 18.4.2019 \u2013 10 ZB 18.2660 \u2013 juris Rn. 9 m.w.N.). This was missing here.<\/p>\n

Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty.<\/strong> Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.<\/p>\n

If you need legal advice, please feel free to call us at 0221 - 80187670<\/strong> or send us an email at or send an email to info@mth-partner.de info@mth-partner.de<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lawyers in Cologne advise and represent clients nationwide in immigration law.<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The appeal is only admissible,
\n\t1. if there are serious doubts about the correctness of the judgement,
\n\t2. if the case presents particular factual or legal difficulties,
\n\t3. if the case is of fundamental importance,
\n\t4. if the judgement deviates from a decision of the Higher Administrative Court, the Federal Administrative Court, the Joint Senate of the Supreme Courts of the Federal Republic of Germany or the Federal Constitutional Court and is based on this deviation or
\n\t5. if a procedural defect subject to the judgement of the court of appeal is asserted and exists on which the decision can be based.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":11619,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36],"tags":[3204],"class_list":["post-5643","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-auslaenderrecht-anwalt","tag-abschiebung-von-islamisten"],"yoast_head":"\nAusl\u00e4nderrecht: Die erfolgreiche Berufung im Ausl\u00e4nderrecht setzt einen Zulassungsgrund voraus. - Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Lehnt das Verwaltungsgericht den Antrag des Ausl\u00e4nders ab, kann dieser einen Berufungszulassungsantrag beim Oberverwaltungsgericht stellen\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/immigration-law-a-successful-appeal-in-immigration-law-requires-a-ground-for-admission\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ausl\u00e4nderrecht: Die erfolgreiche Berufung im Ausl\u00e4nderrecht setzt einen Zulassungsgrund voraus. - Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Lehnt das Verwaltungsgericht den Antrag des Ausl\u00e4nders ab, kann dieser einen Berufungszulassungsantrag beim Oberverwaltungsgericht stellen\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/immigration-law-a-successful-appeal-in-immigration-law-requires-a-ground-for-admission\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100054481000178\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-03-15T13:27:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-06-13T10:50:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Auslanderrecht.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"600\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"helmer\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@mth_Tieben\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@mth_Tieben\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"helmer\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Aliens law: A successful appeal in aliens law requires a reason for admission. - Tieben law firm","description":"If the administrative court rejects the foreigner's application, the foreigner can submit an application for leave to appeal to the Higher Administrative Court","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/immigration-law-a-successful-appeal-in-immigration-law-requires-a-ground-for-admission\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ausl\u00e4nderrecht: Die erfolgreiche Berufung im Ausl\u00e4nderrecht setzt einen Zulassungsgrund voraus. - Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben","og_description":"Lehnt das Verwaltungsgericht den Antrag des Ausl\u00e4nders ab, kann dieser einen Berufungszulassungsantrag beim Oberverwaltungsgericht stellen","og_url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/immigration-law-a-successful-appeal-in-immigration-law-requires-a-ground-for-admission\/","og_site_name":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100054481000178","article_published_time":"2021-03-15T13:27:22+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-06-13T10:50:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":600,"url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Auslanderrecht.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"helmer","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@mth_Tieben","twitter_site":"@mth_Tieben","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"helmer","Estimated reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-die-erfolgreiche-berufung-im-auslaenderrecht-setzt-einen-zulassungsgrund-voraus\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-die-erfolgreiche-berufung-im-auslaenderrecht-setzt-einen-zulassungsgrund-voraus\/"},"author":{"name":"helmer","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/person\/fbcf627706a8a6151cec2217af8c74b3"},"headline":"Ausl\u00e4nderrecht: Die erfolgreiche Berufung im Ausl\u00e4nderrecht setzt einen Zulassungsgrund voraus.","datePublished":"2021-03-15T13:27:22+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-13T10:50:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-die-erfolgreiche-berufung-im-auslaenderrecht-setzt-einen-zulassungsgrund-voraus\/"},"wordCount":1813,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-die-erfolgreiche-berufung-im-auslaenderrecht-setzt-einen-zulassungsgrund-voraus\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Auslanderrecht.jpg","keywords":["Abschiebung von Islamisten"],"articleSection":["Ausl\u00e4nderrecht"],"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-die-erfolgreiche-berufung-im-auslaenderrecht-setzt-einen-zulassungsgrund-voraus\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-die-erfolgreiche-berufung-im-auslaenderrecht-setzt-einen-zulassungsgrund-voraus\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-die-erfolgreiche-berufung-im-auslaenderrecht-setzt-einen-zulassungsgrund-voraus\/","name":"Aliens law: A successful appeal in aliens law requires a reason for admission. - Tieben law firm","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-die-erfolgreiche-berufung-im-auslaenderrecht-setzt-einen-zulassungsgrund-voraus\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-die-erfolgreiche-berufung-im-auslaenderrecht-setzt-einen-zulassungsgrund-voraus\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Auslanderrecht.jpg","datePublished":"2021-03-15T13:27:22+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-13T10:50:15+00:00","description":"If the administrative court rejects the foreigner's application, the foreigner can submit an application for leave to appeal to the Higher Administrative Court","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-die-erfolgreiche-berufung-im-auslaenderrecht-setzt-einen-zulassungsgrund-voraus\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-die-erfolgreiche-berufung-im-auslaenderrecht-setzt-einen-zulassungsgrund-voraus\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-die-erfolgreiche-berufung-im-auslaenderrecht-setzt-einen-zulassungsgrund-voraus\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Auslanderrecht.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Auslanderrecht.jpg","width":1200,"height":600,"caption":"Ausl\u00e4nderrecht"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-die-erfolgreiche-berufung-im-auslaenderrecht-setzt-einen-zulassungsgrund-voraus\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ausl\u00e4nderrecht","item":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/category\/auslaenderrecht-anwalt\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Ausl\u00e4nderrecht: Die erfolgreiche Berufung im Ausl\u00e4nderrecht setzt einen Zulassungsgrund voraus."}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/","name":"Law firm Tieben","description":"Lawyer Tieben \/ Law firm Cologne","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#organization","name":"Law firm Tieben","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/logo.png","width":254,"height":52,"caption":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100054481000178","https:\/\/x.com\/mth_Tieben","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/helmer-tieben-09570226"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/person\/fbcf627706a8a6151cec2217af8c74b3","name":"helmer","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f3308295754604f18007cf9e14e5984d1b864d3edea19e3681ff8c9354cd73e8?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f3308295754604f18007cf9e14e5984d1b864d3edea19e3681ff8c9354cd73e8?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f3308295754604f18007cf9e14e5984d1b864d3edea19e3681ff8c9354cd73e8?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"helmer"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5643","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5643"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5643\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7932,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5643\/revisions\/7932"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11619"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5643"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5643"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5643"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}