BVerwG 8 B 68/14, 8 B 68/14 (8 C 5/15)•Admission of revision due to fundamental importance; supplementing reasons
BVerwG 8 B 68/14, 8 B 68/14 (8 C 5/15)Bverwg / Division 8Jul 7, 2015Granted
Extracted by Omnilex
The Federal Administrative Court upheld the defendant’s complaint against the non-admission of revision. It held that the case has fundamental importance because the revision proceedings are likely to clarify the temporal requirements for supplementing reasons, in particular discretionary considerations. Since this ground already justified admission, the asserted divergence ground did not require a decision. The court also made a preliminary determination of the amount in dispute under the GKG.
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; admission of revision for fundamental importance; supplementing reasons: A complaint against the non-admission of revision succeeds where the case is likely to afford the revising court occasion to clarify a legal question of fundamental importance. A question is of fundamental importance if its answer is open and capable of general significance for the uniform application of law. Where this ground is satisfied, an additional asserted divergence under § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO need not be examined. In temporal terms, the admissibility of subsequently supplementing reasons turns on whether the clarification sought concerns the relevant decision-making stage and its discretionary considerations (consid. 1).
Entscheidungsdatum: 2015-07-07
Aktenzeichen: 8 B 68/14, 8 B 68/14 (8 C 5/15)
ECLI: ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2015:070715B8B68.14.0
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 132 Abs 2 Nr 1 VwGO
Vorinstanz: vorgehend Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, 1. Juli 2014, Az: 6 A 11312/13, Urteilvorgehend VG Trier, 20. Juni 2013, Az: 1 K 438/12.TR
Spruchkörper: 8. Senat
Revisionszulassung; Nachschieben von Gründen
1 Die Beschwerde des Beklagten hat Erfolg. Der Rechtssache kommt grundsätzliche Bedeutung im Sinne des § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO zu. Das Revisionsverfahren gibt voraussichtlich Gelegenheit, die Voraussetzungen für ein Nachschieben von Gründen (Ermessenserwägungen) in zeitlicher Hinsicht zu präzisieren. Auf den weiter geltend gemachten Zulassungsgrund der Divergenz (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO) kommt es daher nicht an.
2 Die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung folgt aus § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG.
Extracted by Omnilex
Whether revision should be admitted because the case has fundamental importance under § 132(2) No. 1 VwGO.
Yes. The complaint succeeded because the case is likely to clarify the temporal requirements for supplementing reasons, especially discretionary considerations.
The court saw a need for clarification on when reasons may be added later; this raises a question of fundamental importance for the revision proceedings.
Whether divergence under § 132(2) No. 2 VwGO justified admission of revision.
The court did not need to decide this ground once fundamental importance was established.
Because the revision was already to be admitted for fundamental importance, the additional divergence ground was irrelevant.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.