projects

Plan approval defect: preservation for part of project

BVerwG 7 B 44/11, 7 B 44/11 (7 C 10/12)Bverwg / Division 7Mar 28, 2012Granted

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The Federal Administrative Court upheld the complaint against the denial of leave to appeal in a planning approval dispute. It held that the case raises a question of fundamental importance concerning the reach of § 75(1a) sentence 2 VwVfG, namely whether plan preservation is possible only for part of a project. The complaint was therefore successful.

Omnilex headnote

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; § 75 Abs. 1a S. 2 VwVfG; fundamental importance of the question whether plan preservation may extend only to part of a project. A complaint against the refusal of leave to appeal is well-founded where the appeal proceedings are expected to clarify an unresolved question on the scope of the plan-preservation provision. The existence of a need for clarification is sufficient; it is not required that the answer be already evident from the statute or settled case law.

Full text

BVerwG — 7 B 44/11, 7 B 44/11 (7 C 10/12), Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2012-03-28

Aktenzeichen: 7 B 44/11, 7 B 44/11 (7 C 10/12)

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Normen: § 75 Abs 1a S 2 VwVfG

Vorinstanz: vorgehend Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, 15. März 2011, Az: 20 A 2147/09, Urteil

Spruchkörper: 7. Senat

Titelzeile

Planfeststellungsbeschluss; Planerhaltung bei Abwägungsmangel

Gründe

1 Die Beschwerde der Beigeladenen gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem angefochtenen Urteil ist begründet. Die Rechtssache hat grundsätzliche Bedeutung im Sinne des § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO. Sie wirft voraussichtlich u.a. die klärungsbedürftige Frage auf, inwieweit § 75 Abs. 1a Satz 2 VwVfG die Planerhaltung für einen Teil des Vorhabens ermöglicht.

Keywords

planning approvalplan preservationnon-admission complaintfundamental importancepartial projectadministrative procedure

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether leave to appeal should be granted because the case raises a fundamental question about § 75(1a) sentence 2 VwVfG and partial plan preservation.

Extracted holding

Yes. The complaint was well-founded because the case raised a question of fundamental importance, namely to what extent § 75(1a) sentence 2 VwVfG allows preservation of a plan for only part of the project.

Extracted reasoning

The court found the legal question unresolved and worthy of clarification in revision proceedings.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

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