projects

Revision admitted on weapons-law reliability review

BVerwG 6 B 25/11, 6 B 25/11 (6 C 29/11)Bverwg / Division 6Aug 25, 2011Granted

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The Federal Administrative Court granted the request for leave to appeal on a question of fundamental importance. It considered unresolved whether a reliability review under § 4(3) WaffG is required when the review was not triggered by a personal event and only about two years had elapsed since the last check, and whether the prior issuance or extension of a one-year hunting license, which itself requires a reliability assessment, affects that question.

Omnilex headnote

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; admission of revision for fundamental importance in weapons-law proceedings. Revision is to be admitted where the case raises a legal question that is not yet sufficiently clarified in the court's case law and whose answer may contribute to the development or clarification of the law. This may be so, in particular, where the need for a reliability review under § 4(3) WaffG is disputed in circumstances of a non-personal review after only a short interval since the last regular check and where a prior issuance or extension of a one-year hunting license under § 17 Abs. 1 sentence 2 BJagdG is said to entail an additional reliability assessment (consid. 1).

Full text

BVerwG — 6 B 25/11, 6 B 25/11 (6 C 29/11), Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2011-08-25

Aktenzeichen: 6 B 25/11, 6 B 25/11 (6 C 29/11)

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Vorinstanz: vorgehend OVG Lüneburg, 19. April 2011, Az: 11 LC 259/10, Urteil

Spruchkörper: 6. Senat

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

revisionfundamental importancereliability reviewweapons lawhunting license

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether revision should be admitted because the case raises a question of fundamental importance regarding a reliability review under § 4(3) WaffG, especially after a non-personal review and a short lapse of time since the last review, and after issuance or extension of a one-year hunting license requiring reliability assessment.

Extracted holding

Revision was admitted because the unresolved legal questions could contribute to clarifying the court's case law.

Extracted reasoning

The court held that the questions had not yet been sufficiently clarified in its jurisprudence and concerned whether a review under § 4(3) WaffG is necessary in the stated circumstances, including the effect of a prior one-year hunting license under § 17(1) sentence 2 BJagdG.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

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