BVerwG 7 B 20/11, 7 B 20/11 (7 C 12/11)•Revision admitted due to unresolved blocking period for plant protection certificate
BVerwG 7 B 20/11, 7 B 20/11 (7 C 12/11)Bverwg / Division 726 avr. 2011Granted
Extrait par Omnilex
The Federal Administrative Court held that the complainant’s challenge to the non-admission of revision was justified. The case had fundamental importance because it raised a still-unclear question about the legal significance of the blocking period under section 16g(2) sentence 2 of the Plant Protection Act. The court therefore granted the complaint. Costs were assessed under the GKG provisions cited in the order.
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; fundamental importance of a case exists where a previously unresolved and revisable legal question of general significance is raised. A complaint against non-admission of revision is successful if the impugned judgment turns on such a question. Where the dispute concerns the meaning and scope of a statutory blocking period, the need for clarification may justify admission of revision if the question has not yet been conclusively answered in the case law.
Entscheidungsdatum: 2011-04-26
Aktenzeichen: 7 B 20/11, 7 B 20/11 (7 C 12/11)
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 16g Abs 2 S 2 PflSchG 1986
Vorinstanz: vorgehend Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, 23. Dezember 2010, Az: 13 A 1211/10, Beschluss
Spruchkörper: 7. Senat
Verkehrsfähigkeitsbescheinigung für Pflanzenschutzmittel; Sperrfrist
1 Die Beschwerde der Klägerin gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem angefochtenen Beschluss ist begründet. Die Rechtssache hat grundsätzliche Bedeutung im Sinne des § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO. Sie wirft die klärungsbedürftige Frage auf, welche Bedeutung der Sperrfrist des § 16g Abs. 2 Satz 2 Pflanzenschutzgesetz zukommt.
2 Die Festsetzung des Streitwerts beruht für das Beschwerdeverfahren auf § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 und Abs. 3, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG, für das Revisionsverfahren auf § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG.
Extrait par Omnilex
Whether the complaint against non-admission of revision was well-founded because the case had fundamental importance.
Yes. The case raised a clarified question regarding the significance of the blocking period in section 16g(2) sentence 2 of the Plant Protection Act.
The disputed legal question had not yet been sufficiently clarified and was capable of arising again in revision.
Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.