BVerwG 3 B 27/11, 3 B 27/11 (3 C 21/11)•Revision admissibility after prior land register entry
BVerwG 3 B 27/11, 3 B 27/11 (3 C 21/11)Bverwg / 3e division16 juin 2011Granted
Extrait par Omnilex
The Federal Administrative Court upheld the plaintiff’s complaint against the denial of leave to appeal. It held that the matter has fundamental significance under § 132(2) No. 1 VwGO because revision could clarify whether § 8(4) sentence 2 VZOG applies analogously when the disposing party was already entered as owner in the land register after an erroneous transfer.
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; admission of revision for fundamental significance where an unresolved legal question may require clarification in revision proceedings. Fundamental significance exists if the case raises a previously unresolved question of federal law whose answer is relevant beyond the individual dispute. This may also be the case where the revision court is called upon to decide whether a provision is applicable by analogy in a constellation not yet clarified, here concerning the possible analogous application of § 8 Abs. 4 Satz 2 VZOG despite prior land-register entry of the disposer as owner due to a defective transfer (consid. 1).
Entscheidungsdatum: 2011-06-16
Aktenzeichen: 3 B 27/11, 3 B 27/11 (3 C 21/11)
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 8 Abs 4 S 2 VZOG, § 132 Abs 2 Nr 1 VwGO
Vorinstanz: vorgehend VG Greifswald, 9. Dezember 2010, Az: 6 A 161/07, Urteil
Spruchkörper: 3. Senat
Vermögenszuordnung; Notwendigkeit des Zuordnungsantrags bei schon gegebener Grundbucheintragung; Revisionszulassung
1 Die Beschwerde der Klägerin ist begründet. Die Rechtssache hat grundsätzliche Bedeutung im Sinne des § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO. Das Revisionsverfahren kann Gelegenheit zur Klärung der Frage bieten, ob § 8 Abs. 4 Satz 2 VZOG entsprechend anwendbar ist, wenn der Verfügende aufgrund einer fehlerhaften Eigentumsübertragung bereits als Eigentümer im Grundbuch eingetragen war.
Extrait par Omnilex
Whether the complaint against denial of leave to appeal is well founded due to fundamental significance under § 132(2) No. 1 VwGO.
Yes. The case raises a question of fundamental significance warranting revision.
Revision may clarify whether § 8(4) sentence 2 VZOG applies by analogy where the disposer was already registered as owner in the land register because of an erroneous transfer.
Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.