BVerwG 8 B 25/11, 8 B 25/11 (8 C 15/11)•Applicability of § 1(7) VermG after criminal rehabilitation
BVerwG 8 B 25/11, 8 B 25/11 (8 C 15/11)Bverwg / Division 8Aug 16, 2011Granted
Extracted by Omnilex
The Federal Administrative Court granted the complaint against non-admission of revision. It held that the case has fundamental importance because it raises whether § 1(7) VermG remains applicable when a DDR criminal confiscation, later lifted by a pardon decision but not formally retracted, is set aside by a rehabilitation decision under § 1 StrRehaG, particularly where the affected person had earlier waived personal use of the assets.
§ 132 Abs. 2 Satz 1 VwGO; fundamental importance of the matter in revision-admission proceedings; the existence of an unresolved legal question of general significance suffices. The decisive point is whether § 1 Abs. 7 VermG applies in conjunction with § 1 StrRehaG where a DDR criminal confiscation had previously been lifted by a pardon decision but not formally revised and the beneficiary had already waived personal use of the confiscated assets. A complaint is well founded if it identifies a legally material and non-clarified question requiring clarification in revision (consid. 1).
Entscheidungsdatum: 2011-08-16
Aktenzeichen: 8 B 25/11, 8 B 25/11 (8 C 15/11)
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 1 StrRehaG, § 1 Abs 7 VermG
Vorinstanz: vorgehend VG Dresden, 25. November 2010, Az: 7 K 1725/08, Urteil
Spruchkörper: 8. Senat
Revisionszulassung; zur Anwendbarkeit von § 1 Abs. 7 VermG neben § 1 StrRehaG
1 Die Beschwerde hat Erfolg. Der Rechtssache kommt die von der Klägerin geltend gemachte grundsätzliche Bedeutung zu (§ 132 Abs. 2 Satz 1 VwGO). Das Beschwerdevorbringen führt auf die Frage, ob § 1 Abs. 7 VermG auch dann anwendbar ist, wenn eine strafrechtliche Rehabilitierungsentscheidung nach § 1 StrRehaG eine durch ein Strafurteil der DDR ausgesprochene Vermögenseinziehung aufgehoben hat, die bereits durch eine Gnadenentscheidung der DDR aufgehoben, aber nicht tatsächlich revidiert worden war, weil der Betroffene bereits zuvor - aber nach der Verurteilung - auf die persönliche Nutzung der eingezogenen Vermögenswerte verzichtet hatte.
Extracted by Omnilex
Whether the complaint against non-admission of revision had fundamental importance.
Yes. The case raises a question of fundamental importance under § 132(2) sentence 1 VwGO.
The complaint identified a still-unresolved legal question on the relationship between § 1(7) VermG and § 1 StrRehaG in a specific factual constellation.
Whether § 1(7) VermG applies when criminal rehabilitation has set aside a DDR confiscation that had earlier been lifted by a pardon decision but not formally reversed.
The court considered this a legally open question warranting revision.
The question concerns whether prior pardon-based relief, without actual revocation of the confiscation, excludes application of restitution law after rehabilitation, especially where the affected person had previously waived personal use of the assets.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.