projects

Revision allowed on timing of compensation for expropriation losses

BVerwG 3 B 37/12, 3 B 37/12 (3 C 27/12)Bverwg / Division 3Nov 26, 2012Granted

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The Federal Administrative Court upheld the complaint against non-admission of revision. It held that the case presents a question of fundamental importance concerning compulsory heirs’ loss compensation under the restitution equalization rules: whether compensation is obtained upon return of the property or payment to the heirs, or only when the heirs actually realize their compulsory portion. This question may be clarified in revision.

Omnilex headnote

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; fundamental importance of a case involving compensation for expropriation losses of compulsory heirs under § 349 in conjunction with § 342 Abs. 3 LAG and § 17 Abs. 5 FeststG, § 16 Abs. 1 BFG; the appeal for leave to appeal is admissible where the revision is capable of clarifying an unresolved, decisive legal question concerning the temporal point at which loss compensation arises. The relevant issue is whether the compulsory heirs’ compensation claim is already realized upon restitution of the property or payment of compensation to the heirs, or only upon actual realization of the compulsory portion claim.

Full text

BVerwG — 3 B 37/12, 3 B 37/12 (3 C 27/12), Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2012-11-26

Aktenzeichen: 3 B 37/12, 3 B 37/12 (3 C 27/12)

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Normen: § 349 LAG, § 342 Abs 3 LAG, § 17 Abs 5 FeststG, § 16 Abs 1 BFG, § 132 Abs 2 Nr 1 VwGO

Vorinstanz: vorgehend VG Trier, 28. März 2012, Az: 5 K 915/11.TR, Urteil

Spruchkörper: 3. Senat

Titelzeile

Feststellung von Vertreibungsschäden von Pflichtteilsberechtigten; Rückforderung von Ausgleichsleistungen; Zeitpunkt des Schadensausgleichs; Revisionszulassung

Gründe

1 Die Beschwerde hat Erfolg. Der Rechtssache kommt die geltend gemachte grundsätzliche Bedeutung (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO) zu. Die Revision kann dem Bundesverwaltungsgericht voraussichtlich Gelegenheit geben zu klären, ob in Fällen, in denen die Feststellung von Anspruchsschäden von Pflichtteilsberechtigten nach § 17 Abs. 5 FG i.V.m. § 16 Abs. 1 BFG als anteiliger Miteigentumsschaden erfolgt ist, die Pflichtteilsberechtigten den Schadensausgleich nach § 349 i.V.m. § 342 Abs. 3 LAG bereits mit der Eigentumsrückgabe oder Entschädigungsleistung an die Erben erlangen oder erst mit Realisierung ihres Pflichtteilsanspruchs.

Keywords

restitutioncompulsory shareloss compensationrevision leavefundamental importance

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the case raises a question of fundamental importance justifying leave to appeal on when compulsory heirs obtain loss compensation under the restitution and equalization rules.

Extracted holding

Yes. The matter is of fundamental importance because revision can clarify whether compensation arises already upon return of the property or payment of compensation to the heirs, or only when the compulsory heirs actually realize their inheritance claim.

Extracted reasoning

The court considered the unresolved legal timing question under § 349 in conjunction with § 342(3) LAG and found that it warrants clarification in revision proceedings.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

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