{"id":5674,"date":"2021-04-16T10:01:03","date_gmt":"2021-04-16T10:01:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/?p=5674"},"modified":"2026-01-02T07:09:03","modified_gmt":"2026-01-02T07:09:03","slug":"auslaenderrecht-erledigung-der-abschiebungsandrohung-durch-abschiebung","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/immigration-law-resolution-of-the-deportation-order-through-deportation\/","title":{"rendered":"Immigration Law: Resolution of the Deportation Order Through Deportation"},"content":{"rendered":"

Administrative Court Munich, May 7, 2020, Case No.: M 10 K 18.4623<\/strong><\/p>\n

When an asylum application or a request for the issuance or extension of a residence permit is rejected, a deportation order often follows. In such cases, the foreigner is required to leave the Federal Republic of Germany within a specified period. If they do not comply, forced deportation ensues.<\/p>\n

In this case, the plaintiff contested both his expulsion and his already executed deportation to North Macedonia. However, since the plaintiff had already been deported, rendering the deportation order ineffective, and both the deportation order and the deportation itself were lawful, the Administrative Court of Munich dismissed the lawsuit.<\/p>\n

\"Reasons<\/p>\n

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

<\/span>The plaintiff appealed against the refusal to extend his residence permit.<\/span><\/h3>\n

The plaintiff held a residence permit that was last valid until March 19, 2015. He applied for an extension.<\/p>\n

On August 14, 2018, the plaintiff received a notice that his applications for extension were denied and that he faced deportation to North Macedonia.<\/p>\n

On September 17, 2018, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the decision.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Accommodation of the plaintiff was ordered due to drug use and violence:<\/span><\/h3>\n

On January 22, 2019, the district hospital requested the termination of the plaintiff\u2019s accommodation and thus the completion of the measure. The plaintiff was diagnosed with dependence syndrome from cannabinoids, abuse of stimulants with a preference for MDMA, and harmful use of cocaine. During his accommodation in the district hospital, the plaintiff repeatedly engaged in physical altercations with fellow patients and committed several rule violations. Due to his behavior, the continuation of the therapy no longer seemed promising. The therapy process aimed at controlling excessive emotions, but the plaintiff\u2019s repeated assaults showed that this process was no longer effective. It was expected that the plaintiff would likely continue to commit similar offenses to those that led to his accommodation, as well as bodily harm. Therefore, a termination of the therapy in the measure of execution was requested.<\/p>\n

The correctional facility\u2019s leadership report from February 19, 2020, indicated that the plaintiff had twice come to disciplinary attention. He regularly received visits from his parents and siblings, who fully utilized the visiting opportunities. In two routine drug screenings, the plaintiff tested negative. The plaintiff sought contact with an external addiction counseling service and participated in several in-depth individual sessions and a relapse prevention training that included twelve group sessions.<\/p>\n

<\/span>The plaintiff is eventually deported to North Macedonia:<\/span><\/h3>\n

On February 24, 2020, the plaintiff was deported to North Macedonia.<\/p>\n

In a decision dated February 26, 2020, the defendant ordered the plaintiff to pay deportation costs amounting to \u20ac1,281.00 and set a payment deadline of four weeks from the notification of the decision.<\/p>\n

On March 26, 2020, the plaintiff\u2019s representative supplemented the lawsuit of September 17, 2018, and requested that the defendant\u2019s decisions of August 14, 2018, and February 26, 2020, be annulled. Additionally, the defendant was to be required to issue the plaintiff a residence permit. Alternatively, it was requested that the plaintiff\u2019s application for issuance\/extension of a residence permit be reconsidered by the court with regard to the legal opinion of the court. The lawsuit also stated that the plaintiff\u2019s deportation on February 24, 2020, was illegal.<\/p>\n

In the oral hearing on May 7, 2020, the plaintiff\u2019s father stated that the plaintiff could work in his business, which he ran together with the plaintiff\u2019s brother, upon returning to Germany.<\/p>\n

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

The Administrative Court of Munich ruled that the lawsuit was unsuccessful. It was partly inadmissible and otherwise unfounded.<\/p>\n

<\/span>The attorney had sufficient time to respond, according to the court:<\/span><\/h3>\n

In the oral hearing, the plaintiff\u2019s representative requested a deadline to respond to the district hospital\u2019s statement of January 22, 2019, and the correctional facility\u2019s leadership report of February 19, 2020.<\/p>\n

However, the plaintiff\u2019s representative was not entitled to a deadline for submission. According to \u00a7 173 Sentence 1 VwGO in conjunction with \u00a7 283 Sentence 1 ZPO, the court may set a deadline for a party to submit a response if they cannot respond to the opponent\u2019s submission during the oral hearing because it was not communicated in time before the hearing.<\/p>\n

The plaintiff\u2019s representative was notified on the same day about the transmission of the correctional facility\u2019s leadership report to the court on March 12, 2020, and the district hospital\u2019s report to the court on March 24, 2020. Therefore, he had sufficient opportunity to respond to the reports.<\/p>\n

Moreover, he had been in contact with the court and its office for file inspection purposes since March 4, 2020. He was offered file inspection several times. Since it was expected that the representative would take advantage of the file inspection, a separate transmission of the reports was not necessary from the court\u2019s perspective. The fact that the plaintiff\u2019s representative did not utilize the offered opportunities was his own responsibility.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the reports were sent to him by fax on May 5, 2020, prior to the oral hearing, allowing him another opportunity to respond to them. Since the reports did not mention any new circumstances that would have required an extensive response, the representative still had enough time to respond after receiving them by fax. As the circumstances mentioned in the reports were already known to the plaintiff\u2019s representative, he could have responded well before the oral hearing. Given his knowledge of these circumstances, he could also have responded briefly before or during the oral hearing. Therefore, the court did not base its decision on new submissions within the meaning of \u00a7 173 Sentence 1 VwGO in conjunction with \u00a7 283 Sentence 1 ZPO.<\/p>\n

<\/span>The plaintiff lacked the need for legal protection in the lawsuit against the deportation order:<\/span><\/h3>\n

The lawsuit was also inadmissible as it was directed against the deportation order in the defendant\u2019s decision of August 14, 2018. The plaintiff lacked the necessary need for legal protection in this regard.<\/p>\n

According to established case law, only those pursuing a legitimate interest in legal protection have a claim to a court decision. This requirement is an expression of the general prohibition of abuse of rights and must be examined by the court ex officio at any stage of the proceedings. If this is lacking, the request must be dismissed as inadmissible.<\/p>\n

The plaintiff could not improve his legal position by having the order annulled, which is why the necessary interest in the requested annulment was denied.<\/p>\n

<\/span>The deportation order became moot due to the deportation:<\/span><\/h3>\n

On February 24, 2020, the plaintiff was deported to North Macedonia. Thus, the deportation order became moot under Article 43(2) BayVwVfG. An administrative act becomes moot when it becomes \u201epointless,\u201c meaning no further formal or material effects can arise from it. According to \u00a7 11(1) AufenthG (\u201eAn entry and residence ban must be issued against a foreigner who has been expelled, removed, or deported\u201c), the legal consequences (here the issuance of an entry and residence ban) follow the deportation or expulsion itself, not the deportation order. Similarly, for the question of the legality of a performance decision under \u00a7\u00a7 66 f. AufenthG, the legality of the deportation carried out is decisive. Accordingly, the legal consequence of the deported person\u2019s obligation to bear costs attaches to the deportation itself, not the deportation order. Since the plaintiff could not improve his legal position by annulling a provision that no longer had any effect on him, the interest in the requested decision was denied.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Re-entry into Germany could be achieved by limiting the entry and residence ban:<\/span><\/h3>\n

The plaintiff pursued his lawsuit with the aim of remaining in Germany and preventing the deportation that had already occurred. However, since he had already been deported to North Macedonia, he could no longer achieve his goal. A return to Germany, which he now sought after the deportation, could be achieved by other means, such as an application to shorten the duration of the entry and residence ban under \u00a7 11(1) AufenthG. For this reason, too, there was no legitimate interest in the requested annulment.<\/p>\n

<\/span>The lawsuit was also unfounded:<\/span><\/h3>\n

The Administrative Court found that the defendant\u2019s decision of August 14, 2018, was lawful and did not violate the plaintiff\u2019s rights (\u00a7 113(1) Sentence 1 VwGO). Moreover, the plaintiff had no claim to the issuance of a residence permit (\u00a7 113(5) Sentence 1 VwGO).<\/p>\n

The plaintiff posed a danger to public safety and order in the Federal Republic of Germany within the meaning of \u00a7 53(1) AufenthG. Particularly due to his drug addiction, which was not fully treated after the termination of his accommodation in the rehabilitation institution, and the fact that he had not yet proven himself outside of detention or accommodation, there was a risk of recurrence.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Interests in expulsion outweighed the plaintiff\u2019s interests in staying:<\/span><\/h3>\n

According to \u00a7 53(1), (2) AufenthG, a balancing of interests must be undertaken, which, however, was to the detriment of the plaintiff. No circumstances were presented that would lead to an outweighing of the plaintiff\u2019s interests in staying. The plaintiff had particularly serious expulsion interests under \u00a7 54(1) Nos. 1 and 1a AufenthG. The possibility that the plaintiff could work in his father\u2019s and brother\u2019s business after his return did not outweigh the expulsion interests present.<\/p>\n

<\/span>The deportation to North Macedonia on February 24, 2020, was also lawful (\u00a7 43(1) VwGO):<\/span><\/h3>\n

The legal basis for the deportation was \u00a7 58(1) Sentence 1 AufenthG.<\/p>\n

According to this provision, a foreigner must be deported if the obligation to leave the country is enforceable, a deadline for leaving has not been granted, or has expired, and voluntary compliance with the obligation to leave is not ensured or if supervision of the departure is necessary for reasons of public safety and order. All these conditions were met.<\/p>\n

The plaintiff was obligated to leave the country on February 24, 2020. According to \u00a7 50(1) AufenthG, a foreigner is obligated to leave if he does not or no longer possesses the required residence permit.<\/p>\n

The plaintiff\u2019s residence permit under \u00a7 32(3) AufenthG was last valid until March 19, 2015. The plaintiff\u2019s applications for an extension were rejected in the decision of August 14, 2018, which is also the subject of this dispute. Since the rejection of the application ended the legal fiction under \u00a7 81(4) Sentence 1 AufenthG, the plaintiff was no longer in possession of the required residence permit and was obligated to leave under \u00a7 51(1) AufenthG.<\/p>\n

This obligation to leave was enforceable despite the lawsuit. According to \u00a7 58(2) Sentence 2 AufenthG, the obligation to leave is only enforceable when the denial of the residence permit or other administrative act that makes the foreigner obligated to leave under \u00a7 50(1) AufenthG is enforceable. The rejection of the application for an extension of the residence permit, from which the plaintiff\u2019s obligation to leave derived, was immediately enforceable. The current lawsuit for the issuance of the residence permit, in which the rejection decision is also challenged, did not have a suspensive effect according to \u00a7 84(1) Sentence 1 No. 1 AufenthG.<\/p>\n

Due to his detention, the plaintiff was not granted a departure deadline under \u00a7\u00a7 59(5) Sentence 1, 58(3) No. 1 AufenthG, and the monitoring of his departure was required under \u00a7 58(3) No. 1 AufenthG.<\/p>\n

Therefore, all conditions for deportation were met on February 24, 2020.<\/p>\n

Source: Munich Administrative Court<\/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":"

A foreigner must be deported if the obligation to leave the country is enforceable, a deadline for departure has not been granted or has expired and voluntary fulfilment of the obligation to leave the country is not assured or monitoring of the departure appears necessary for reasons of public safety and order<\/p>","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":11619,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3666],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5674","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-aufenthaltsbeendigung"],"yoast_head":"\nAusl\u00e4nderrecht: Erledigung der Abschiebungsandrohung durch Abschiebung - Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Die Ablehnung einer Aufenthaltserlaubnis oder einer Niederlassungserlaubnis kann mit einer Abschiebungsandrohung verbunden werden.\" \/>\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-resolution-of-the-deportation-order-through-deportation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ausl\u00e4nderrecht: Erledigung der Abschiebungsandrohung durch Abschiebung - Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Die Ablehnung einer Aufenthaltserlaubnis oder einer Niederlassungserlaubnis kann mit einer Abschiebungsandrohung verbunden werden.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/immigration-law-resolution-of-the-deportation-order-through-deportation\/\" \/>\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=\"2021-04-16T10:01:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-01-02T07:09:03+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Aliens law: Cancellation of the threat of deportation by deportation - Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Tieben","description":"The refusal of a residence permit or a settlement permit can be combined with a threat of deportation.","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-resolution-of-the-deportation-order-through-deportation\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ausl\u00e4nderrecht: Erledigung der Abschiebungsandrohung durch Abschiebung - Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben","og_description":"Die Ablehnung einer Aufenthaltserlaubnis oder einer Niederlassungserlaubnis kann mit einer Abschiebungsandrohung verbunden werden.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/immigration-law-resolution-of-the-deportation-order-through-deportation\/","og_site_name":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100054481000178","article_published_time":"2021-04-16T10:01:03+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-01-02T07:09:03+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-erledigung-der-abschiebungsandrohung-durch-abschiebung\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-erledigung-der-abschiebungsandrohung-durch-abschiebung\/"},"author":{"name":"helmer","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/person\/fbcf627706a8a6151cec2217af8c74b3"},"headline":"Ausl\u00e4nderrecht: Erledigung der Abschiebungsandrohung durch Abschiebung","datePublished":"2021-04-16T10:01:03+00:00","dateModified":"2026-01-02T07:09:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-erledigung-der-abschiebungsandrohung-durch-abschiebung\/"},"wordCount":1997,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-erledigung-der-abschiebungsandrohung-durch-abschiebung\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Auslanderrecht.jpg","articleSection":["Aufenthaltsbeendigung"],"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-erledigung-der-abschiebungsandrohung-durch-abschiebung\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-erledigung-der-abschiebungsandrohung-durch-abschiebung\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-erledigung-der-abschiebungsandrohung-durch-abschiebung\/","name":"Aliens law: Cancellation of the threat of deportation by deportation - Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Tieben","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-erledigung-der-abschiebungsandrohung-durch-abschiebung\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-erledigung-der-abschiebungsandrohung-durch-abschiebung\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Auslanderrecht.jpg","datePublished":"2021-04-16T10:01:03+00:00","dateModified":"2026-01-02T07:09:03+00:00","description":"The refusal of a residence permit or a settlement permit can be combined with a threat of deportation.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-erledigung-der-abschiebungsandrohung-durch-abschiebung\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-erledigung-der-abschiebungsandrohung-durch-abschiebung\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslaenderrecht-erledigung-der-abschiebungsandrohung-durch-abschiebung\/#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-erledigung-der-abschiebungsandrohung-durch-abschiebung\/#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":"Aufenthaltsbeendigung","item":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/category\/auslaenderrecht-anwalt\/aufenthaltsbeendigung\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"Ausl\u00e4nderrecht: Erledigung der Abschiebungsandrohung durch Abschiebung"}]},{"@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\/5674","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=5674"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5674\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12950,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5674\/revisions\/12950"}],"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=5674"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5674"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5674"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}