1. The prohibition on double jeopardy that proceeds from res judicata pertains only to administrative acts with the same content, i.e., that settle the same matter by providing for the same legal consequence (here: denied in regard to reversal and revocation of refugee status).
2. Revocation of refugee status under Section 73(1) sentence 1 and 2 of the Asylum Procedure Act in conjunction with Article 11(1)(e) of Directive 2004/83/EC presupposes that in view of a significant and non-temporary change in the circumstances in the country of origin, the circumstances that formed the basis of the individual's well-founded fear of persecution, and for his recognition as a refugee, have been eradicated (following ECJ, judgment of 2 March 2010 - Case C-175/08 et al., Abdulla et al. - NVwZ 2010, 505).
3. A significant change in the circumstances on which persecution was based exists if the actual circumstances in the country of origin have changed clearly and materially. New facts must have given rise to a significantly changed basis, material to a decision, for a determination of the likelihood of persecution, so that there is no longer any considerable probability of persecution (change from previous case law).
4. A change is permanent if a prognosis indicates that the change in circumstances is stable, i.e., that the factors on which persecution was based will remain eradicated for the foreseeable future.