projects

Revision admitted due to need to clarify de facto expropriation

BVerwG 8 B 41/10, 8 B 41/10 (8 C 2/11)Bverwg / Division 8Apr 5, 2011Granted

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The Federal Administrative Court upheld the complaint against non-admission of revision. It found that the case has fundamental significance because the revision proceedings may further clarify the concept of de facto expropriation in restitution law, in particular whether an expropriating interference requires subjective elements. Costs were not discussed in the dispositive part; the cited materials also mention the statutory basis for the value in dispute.

Omnilex headnote

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; admission of revision for fundamental significance in restitution law: A case has fundamental significance where the revisional proceedings are likely to afford an opportunity to further develop or clarify established case law. This is particularly so if the court must examine the contours of the de facto expropriation concept under § 1 VermG, including whether an expropriating act presupposes subjective elements (consid. 1).

Full text

BVerwG — 8 B 41/10, 8 B 41/10 (8 C 2/11), Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2011-04-05

Aktenzeichen: 8 B 41/10, 8 B 41/10 (8 C 2/11)

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Normen: § 1 VermG, § 132 Abs 2 Nr 1 VwGO

Vorinstanz: vorgehend VG Berlin, 3. Dezember 2004, Az: 25 A 240.99, Urteil

Spruchkörper: 8. Senat

Titelzeile

Revisionszulassung; faktischer Enteignungsbegriff

Gründe

1 Die Beschwerde ist begründet. Die Rechtssache hat grundsätzliche Bedeutung im Sinne von § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO. Das Revisionsverfahren kann dem Senat voraussichtlich Gelegenheit geben, den durch das Bundesverwaltungsgericht in ständiger Rechtsprechung für das Vermögensrecht entwickelten sogenannten faktischen Enteignungsbegriff (vgl. Urteil vom 13. Februar 1997 - BVerwG 7 C 50.95 - BVerwGE 104, 84 <87> m.w.N. = Buchholz 428 § 1 VermG Nr. 104) weiter zu präzisieren, insbesondere dahin, ob und inwieweit der enteignende Zugriff subjektive Elemente voraussetzt.

2 Die Streitwertfestsetzung beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1 und 3, § 52 Abs. 1 und 4, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG.

Keywords

revision admissibilityfundamental significancede facto expropriationrestitution lawsubjective elements

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the revision should be admitted for fundamental significance under § 132(2) No. 1 VwGO.

Extracted holding

Yes. The case may allow further clarification of the de facto expropriation concept developed in restitution case law, especially whether an expropriating act requires subjective elements.

Extracted reasoning

The legal question is unresolved enough to warrant review; the revision can likely be used to refine the established doctrine on de facto expropriation in property restitution law.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.