A distinction exam despite scandal: Why a buyer of exam solutions is now not being punished

The world of German law studies has been shaken - a former judge sold solution sketches for the second state examination. The buyers were under general suspicion, but now a ruling by the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) has caused a stir: An alleged buyer is allowed to keep her predicate exam. Why? Because there was insufficient evidence of deception.

The accusations - a hot story

It all began with a spectacular scandal: Jörg L., a former judge, had been selling confidential examination papers for the second state law exam for years. Buyers paid up to 20,000 euros for access to the solutions. But after L. fled and was caught in Italy, the candidates were placed under suspicion. Some lost their certificates and their careers were in jeopardy.

A woman from Bremen also came under scrutiny. She is said to have been one of these buyers, and the Lower Saxony Examination Office claimed that her exams were unusually similar to the solution sketches. But the case took a surprising turn.

The BVerwG overturns the accusations of deception

Although the authorities and the administrative court initially assumed that the student had cheated, the Higher Administrative Court of Lower Saxony (OVG) ruled that there was no clear evidence to prove that the student from Bremen had cheated. The exams did have similarities with the solutions, but according to the OVG, this was not enough to prove cheating. The examination office had to drop its accusations.

And when the BVerwG dealt with the case, it confirmed the decision of the OVG. The evidence of cheating was not sufficient to disqualify the woman from taking the exam. The burden of proof lay with the examination authority, which had failed to prove cheating. She had to accept the result.

A precedent for the future?

The ruling of the Federal Administrative Court is of great importance - not only for the Bremen woman, but for all those who could find themselves in similar situations. It shows that legal examinations must be examined very carefully before a final decision can be made. Evidence must be clear and reliable. A mere similarity between exams and the official solutions is not enough to prove cheating.

This ruling could play an important role in the future if similar suspicions of fraud arise. Anyone wishing to obtain a predicate examination can now be more certain that not every match between solutions will immediately lead to suspicion. It remains to be seen how other courts will handle such cases.

Right or wrong? Why the verdict almost rewards the scandal

Well, let's be honest: what do we actually have here? A suspected fraudster who has manipulated the system for years - and in the end the main suspect is left on the safe side with an acquittal. This is a slap in the face for all those who rely on fair trials. It is clear that the rule of law is functioning correctly here, but in a way that almost encourages the scandal. It is clear to us that such brazen accusations cannot simply be wiped off the table without a stronger burden of proof. Sure, the legal system is on the side of the presumption of innocence, but how many times do you have to aim for the head of those who exploit the system before it finally realizes that something is wrong?