projects

Erschlossensein of rear land parcels

BVerwG 9 B 9/13Bverwg / Division 9Jul 11, 2013Granted

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The Federal Administrative Court granted the defendant's complaint and admitted the revision. The court found that the case raises a fundamental question on whether a rear parcel within the meaning of § 131(1) sentence 1 BauGB is considered served when the adjoining and rear parcels are separately buildable, owned by the same person, and used jointly for a non-building purpose, here as a horse paddock.

Omnilex headnote

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; admission of revision for fundamental importance in disputes over the service of rear parcels under § 131 Abs. 1 sentence 1 BauGB. Revision may be admitted where the case affords occasion to clarify whether a rear parcel is served although the adjoining and rear parcels are separately buildable, owned by the same person, and used jointly in a manner unrelated to building use. The need for further development of the case law suffices when the legal question has not yet been clarified and is relevant beyond the individual case (consid. 1).

Full text

BVerwG — 9 B 9/13, Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2013-07-11

Aktenzeichen: 9 B 9/13

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Normen: § 131 Abs 1 S 1 BauGB

Vorinstanz: vorgehend Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof, 14. Dezember 2012, Az: 5 A 1884/12, Beschluss

Spruchkörper: 9. Senat

Titelzeile

Erschlossensein von Hinterliegergrundstücken

Gründe

1 Die Beschwerde der Beklagten ist zulässig und begründet. Die Revision ist gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache zuzulassen. Sie kann dem Bundesverwaltungsgericht Gelegenheit zur Fortentwicklung der Rechtsprechung zum Erschlossensein von Hinterliegergrundstücken im Sinne des § 131 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BauGB geben, insbesondere zur Klärung der Frage, ob - bei selbständiger Bebaubarkeit von Anlieger- und Hinterliegergrundstück und Eigentümeridentität - das Hinterliegergrundstück auch dann erschlossen ist, wenn die einheitliche Nutzung beider Grundstücke nicht baulicher Natur ist (hier: Nutzung als Pferdekoppel).

Keywords

planning lawbuilding landrear parcelaccessibilityfundamental importance

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether revision should be admitted for fundamental importance concerning the service status of a rear parcel under § 131(1) sentence 1 BauGB.

Extracted holding

Revision was admitted because the case raises a question of fundamental importance and may develop the case law on whether a rear parcel is served despite non-building-related joint use of the parcels.

Extracted reasoning

The Federal Administrative Court considered clarification necessary, especially where the adjoining and rear parcels are separately buildable and owned by the same person, but their unified use is not of a structural/building nature.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

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