projects

Revision allowed on interpretation of § 17 KHEntgG for aid eligibility

BVerwG 5 B 58/12, 5 B 58/12 (5 C 26/13)Bverwg / Division 5Jun 19, 2013Granted

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The Federal Administrative Court upheld the defendant’s complaint and allowed the revision. It held that the case raises a question of fundamental importance concerning the interpretation of § 17(2) sentence 1 half-sentence 2 KHEntgG, specifically whether expenses for elective hospital services are eligible for civil-service aid. No merits decision was taken; the ruling concerns only admission of the revision.

Omnilex headnote

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; admissibility of revision for fundamental significance; interpretation of § 17 Abs. 2 sentence 1 half-sentence 2 KHEntgG in relation to civil-service aid for elective hospital services. Revision is to be allowed where the dispute raises an unresolved question of statutory interpretation whose clarification is capable of affecting the legal assessment beyond the individual case. It is sufficient that the proposed revision can serve to clarify the scope of aid eligibility of expenses for elective services; a merits determination is not required at the admission stage.

Full text

BVerwG — 5 B 58/12, 5 B 58/12 (5 C 26/13), Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2013-06-19

Aktenzeichen: 5 B 58/12, 5 B 58/12 (5 C 26/13)

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Normen: § 17 Abs 2 S 1 Halbs 2 KHEntgG

Vorinstanz: vorgehend Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg, 17. April 2012, Az: 2 S 1730/11, Urteil

Spruchkörper: 5. Senat

Titelzeile

Beihilfe; Wahlleistung

Gründe

1 Die Beschwerde des Beklagten ist zulässig und begründet. Die Revision ist nach § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache zuzulassen.

2 Die Revision kann dem Senat Gelegenheit geben, Fragen der Auslegung des § 17 Abs. 2 Satz 1 Halbs. 2 KHEntgG im Hinblick auf die Beihilfefähigkeit von Aufwendungen für Wahlleistungen zu klären.

Keywords

revisionfundamental significanceaid eligibilityelective servicesstatutory interpretation

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether revision should be allowed for fundamental significance regarding the interpretation of § 17(2) sentence 1 half-sentence 2 KHEntgG and the aid eligibility of expenses for elective services.

Extracted holding

Revision is to be allowed because the case raises a question of fundamental importance concerning the interpretation of § 17(2) sentence 1 half-sentence 2 KHEntgG in relation to the aid eligibility of expenses for elective services.

Extracted reasoning

The complaint is admissible and well-founded; the proposed revision may clarify unresolved interpretive questions with broader significance.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

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