projects

Revision admitted on meaning of “architect” under EU recognition law

BVerwG 8 B 96/11, 8 B 96/11 (8 C 9/12)Bverwg / Division 8Feb 16, 2012Granted

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The Federal Administrative Court upheld the defendant’s complaint and admitted the revision. It held that the case has fundamental significance because the revision proceedings will likely need to clarify what requirements Article 10(c) of Directive 2005/36/EC sets for the term “architect” in connection with the claimant’s Austrian qualification as a master builder. The court also provisionally fixed the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings under the cost statutes.

Omnilex headnote

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; Art. 10 Buchst. c RL 2005/36/EG; leave to appeal on grounds of fundamental significance in professional recognition cases. A revision is to be allowed where the dispute raises an unresolved question of general importance requiring clarification in the appellate instance. This is so in particular when the interpretation of an EU-law professional-recognition provision depends on the meaning and scope of a protected professional title, here the term “architect” within Art. 10(c) of Directive 2005/36/EC. For leave purposes, it suffices that the revisional clarification is likely to be necessary and capable of influencing the outcome (consid. 1).

Full text

BVerwG — 8 B 96/11, 8 B 96/11 (8 C 9/12), Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2012-02-16

Aktenzeichen: 8 B 96/11, 8 B 96/11 (8 C 9/12)

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Normen: Art 10 Buchst c EGRL 36/2005

Vorinstanz: vorgehend Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof, 20. September 2011, Az: 22 B 10.2360, Urteil

Spruchkörper: 8. Senat

Titelzeile

Revisionszulassung; Berufsanerkennung

Gründe

1 Die Beschwerde hat Erfolg. Der Rechtssache kommt die von dem Beklagten geltend gemachte grundsätzliche Bedeutung nach § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO zu. Im Revisionsverfahren wird im Hinblick auf die vom Kläger in Österreich erworbene Qualifikation als Baumeister voraussichtlich zu klären sein, welche Anforderungen Art. 10 Buchst. c der Richtlinie 2005/36/EG mit dem Tatbestandsmerkmal "Architekt" stellt.

2 Die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 4 GKG.

Keywords

revision leavefundamental significanceprofessional recognitionarchitect titleEU directive

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the complaint against denial of leave to appeal succeeded because the case had fundamental significance for revision.

Extracted holding

Yes. The complaint succeeded because the case raises a question of fundamental significance under § 132(2) No. 1 VwGO.

Extracted reasoning

The revision court will likely need to clarify what requirements Article 10(c) of Directive 2005/36/EC imposes through the term “architect” in relation to the claimant’s Austrian qualification as master builder.

Key legal question

Provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.

Extracted holding

The amount in dispute was provisionally fixed under the statutory cost provisions.

Extracted reasoning

The court based the provisional value assessment on § 47(1) sentence 1 and § 52(4) GKG.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

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