projects

Revision allowed on review under Section 4(3) WaffG

BVerwG 6 B 20/11, 6 B 20/11 (6 C 24/11)Bverwg / Division 6Aug 25, 2011Granted

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The Federal Administrative Court admitted the revision against the OVG Lüneburg judgment. It held that the case has fundamental importance because unresolved questions remain as to when a review under Section 4(3) WaffG is required, especially where no personal trigger exists, only about two years have passed since the last regular review, and the person had previously been issued or renewed a yearly hunting license, which also presupposes a reliability check.

Omnilex headnote

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; admissibility of revision for fundamental importance in relation to Section 4(3) WaffG review requirements. Revision is to be admitted where the case is capable of clarifying questions of law not yet sufficiently settled in the Federal Administrative Court’s case law. This applies in particular to the issue whether a reliability review under Section 4(3) WaffG must be carried out absent a personal occasion and after only a comparatively short lapse of time since the last regular review, and whether the prior issuance or renewal of a yearly hunting license, which itself presupposes a reliability assessment under Section 17(1) sentence 2 BJagdG, affects that duty. The decisive factor is the need for clarification of an unresolved legal question of general significance.

Full text

BVerwG — 6 B 20/11, 6 B 20/11 (6 C 24/11), Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2011-08-25

Aktenzeichen: 6 B 20/11, 6 B 20/11 (6 C 24/11)

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Normen: § 4 Abs 3 WaffG 2002, § 132 Abs 2 Nr 1 VwGO

Vorinstanz: vorgehend OVG Lüneburg, 19. April 2011, Az: 11 LC 260/10, Urteil

Spruchkörper: 6. Senat

Titelzeile

Revisionszulassung; Überprüfung nach § 4 Abs. 3 WaffG

Gründe

1 Die Revision ist gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung des Rechtsstreits zuzulassen. Das angestrebte Revisionsverfahren kann zur Beantwortung der bisher in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts nicht ausreichend geklärten Fragen beitragen, ob eine Überprüfung nach § 4 Abs. 3 WaffG erforderlich ist, wenn sie zum einen ohne personenbezogenen Anlass erfolgte und seit der letzten Regelüberprüfung erst etwa zwei Jahre verstrichen sind sowie zum anderen, wenn dem Überprüften zuvor ein Jahresjagdschein erteilt bzw. verlängert worden ist, welcher ebenfalls eine - hier nicht durchgeführte - Prüfung der Zuverlässigkeit voraussetzt (§ 17 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BJagdG).

Keywords

revision admissibilityfundamental importanceweapon lawreliability reviewhunting license

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether revision should be admitted because the case has fundamental importance under Section 132(2) No. 1 VwGO.

Extracted holding

Revision is admitted because the case raises legally unsettled questions of fundamental importance.

Extracted reasoning

The proposed revision can help clarify whether a review under Section 4(3) WaffG is required when it occurs without a personal trigger and only about two years after the last regular review, and whether prior issuance or renewal of a yearly hunting license affects that requirement.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

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