BVerwG 3 B 21/15, 3 B 21/15 (3 C 3/16)•Revision admitted for clarification of 'membership' under BerRehaG
BVerwG 3 B 21/15, 3 B 21/15 (3 C 3/16)Bverwg / Division 3Feb 3, 2016Granted
Extracted by Omnilex
The Federal Administrative Court upheld the complaint against non-admission of revision and admitted the revision because the matter is of fundamental importance. The court considered that the revision proceedings would likely clarify the meaning of 'membership' in a GDR supplementary or special pension system under the Professional Rehabilitation Act. It also provisionally set the dispute value at the statutory minimum, because the economic impact of any success for the complainant appeared slight.
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; revision leave for fundamental importance requires a legal question of general significance that is in need of clarification; the complaint succeeds where the lower court has not yet elucidated a statutory concept of central importance. The dispute value in revision proceedings is to be provisionally assessed under § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG; the minimum value is appropriate where the economic consequences of success are likely limited.
Entscheidungsdatum: 2016-02-03
Aktenzeichen: 3 B 21/15, 3 B 21/15 (3 C 3/16)
ECLI: ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2016:030216B3B21.15.0
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: BerRehaG, § 132 Abs 2 Nr 1 VwGO
Vorinstanz: vorgehend VG Potsdam, 18. November 2014, Az: 11 K 4205/13, Urteil
Spruchkörper: 3. Senat
Revisionszulassung; Begriff "Zugehörigkeit" i.S.d. BerRehaG
1 Die Beschwerde hat Erfolg. Der Rechtssache kommt die von dem Kläger geltend gemachte grundsätzliche Bedeutung zu (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO).
2 Das Revisionsverfahren wird dem Senat voraussichtlich Gelegenheit geben, den Begriff der "Zugehörigkeit" zu einem Zusatz- oder Sonderversorgungssystem der DDR im Sinne des Beruflichen Rehabilitierungsgesetzes zu präzisieren.
3 Die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG. Die Festsetzung des Mindeststreitwertes nach Anlage 2 zu § 34 Abs. 1 Satz 3 GKG ist angemessen, weil die wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen eines Erfolgs des Revisionsverfahrens für den Kläger voraussichtlich gering sind.
Extracted by Omnilex
Whether revision should be admitted because the case has fundamental importance under Section 132(2)(1) VwGO.
Yes. The complaint succeeded because the case raises a question of fundamental importance.
The revision proceedings are likely to clarify the meaning of 'membership' in a GDR supplementary or special pension system within the meaning of the Professional Rehabilitation Act.
Provisional assessment of the dispute value for the revision proceedings.
The minimum dispute value was appropriate because the economic effects of a successful revision for the complainant were expected to be slight.
The court applied the statutory framework for dispute valuation and found no basis for a higher amount.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.