projects

Revision complaint granted due to fundamental significance

BVerwG 6 B 18/12, 6 B 18/12 (6 C 21/12)Bverwg / Division 6Aug 9, 2012Granted

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The Federal Administrative Court upheld the defendant's complaint against the refusal to admit revision. It held that the case has fundamental significance because it can clarify whether a treaty-based subsidy scheme for Jewish communities is compatible with the constitutional duty of judicial protection when key distribution criteria are left to the exclusive assessment of a third party.

Omnilex headnote

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; fundamental significance of a case is given where a legally unresolved constitutional question of general importance arises. A complaint against non-admission is to be upheld if the case can contribute to clarifying whether a rule governing the distribution of public subsidies is compatible with Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG in conjunction with Art. 92 GG, particularly where decisive distribution requirements are subject to the exclusive assessment competence of a third party.

Full text

BVerwG — 6 B 18/12, 6 B 18/12 (6 C 21/12), Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2012-08-09

Aktenzeichen: 6 B 18/12, 6 B 18/12 (6 C 21/12)

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Vorinstanz: vorgehend Oberverwaltungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt, 20. Juli 2011, Az: 3 L 167/10, Urteil

Spruchkörper: 6. Senat

Gründe

1 Die Beschwerde des Beklagten gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision ist begründet. Die Rechtssache hat die sinngemäß geltend gemachte grundsätzliche Bedeutung im Sinne des § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO. Sie kann zur Klärung der Frage beitragen, ob es mit der Justizgewährungspflicht (Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG i.V.m. Art. 92 GG) vereinbar ist, wenn eine staatsvertragliche Regelung über einen Landeszuschuss für jüdische Gemeinden dahin ausgelegt wird, dass für die Verteilung maßgebliche Erfordernisse der ausschließlichen Prüfungskompetenz eines Dritten unterliegen.

Keywords

revision admissibilityfundamental significancejudicial protectionstate subsidyJewish communitiestreaty interpretationthird-party assessment

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the complaint against non-admission of revision is well-founded because the case has fundamental significance.

Extracted holding

Yes. The matter may clarify whether a treaty-based rule on a subsidy for Jewish communities is compatible with the constitutional duty of effective judicial protection when decisive distribution requirements are subject to a third party's exclusive assessment competence.

Extracted reasoning

The court considered the constitutional question capable of general clarification and thus sufficient for admitting revision.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

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