progetti

Revision allowed due to divergence

BVerwG 4 B 67/09, 4 B 67/09 (4 C 7/10)Bverwg / 4a divisione3 feb 2010Granted

Apri la fonte

Estratto da Omnilex

Sintesi Omnilex

The Federal Administrative Court upheld a complaint against the denial of leave to appeal. It found that the Lower Saxony Higher Administrative Court’s judgment deviated from several earlier Federal Administrative Court judgments and that the judgment rested on that divergence. The court therefore set aside the non-admission decision and allowed the revision. It also ruled that the costs of the complaint proceedings follow the main proceedings and fixed the provisional value in dispute at EUR 1,012,500 for both the complaint and revision proceedings.

Massima Omnilex

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO; divergence as a ground for admission of revision: Revision is to be admitted when the challenged judgment departs in a decisive point from a decision of the Federal Administrative Court on the same legal proposition and the decision is based on that departure. A mere different assessment of facts or evidence is insufficient; required is a contradiction in a controlling abstract legal principle or its application. For the value in dispute, the court applies §§ 47, 52, 63 GKG according to the procedural stage and may determine it provisionally for the complaint and revision proceedings.

Testo completo

BVerwG — 4 B 67/09, 4 B 67/09 (4 C 7/10), Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2010-02-03

Aktenzeichen: 4 B 67/09, 4 B 67/09 (4 C 7/10)

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Vorinstanz: vorgehend OVG Lüneburg, 22. Juni 2009, Az: 1 LB 52/08

Spruchkörper: 4. Senat

Tenor

Die Entscheidung des Niedersächsischen Oberverwaltungsgerichts über die Nichtzulassung der Revision gegen sein Urteil vom 22. Juni 2009 wird aufgehoben.

Die Revision wird zugelassen.

Die Entscheidung über die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens folgt der Kostenentscheidung in der Hauptsache.

Der Wert des Streitgegenstandes wird für das Beschwerdeverfahren und für das Revisionsverfahren vorläufig auf jeweils 1 012 500 € festgesetzt.

Gründe

1 Die Beschwerde ist begründet. Die Revision ist nach § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO zuzulassen, weil das Urteil des Niedersächsischen Oberverwaltungsgerichts vom 22. Juni 2009 von den Urteilen des Senats vom 19. September 1986 - BVerwG 4 C 15.84 - (BVerwGE 75, 34), vom 3. April 1987 - BVerwG 4 C 41.84 - (BRS 47 Nr. 63 = Buchholz 406.11 § 34 BBauG Nr. 117) und vom 26. Mai 1978 - BVerwG 4 C 9.77 - (BVerwGE 55, 369) abweicht und auf dieser Abweichung beruht.

2 Die Streitwertfestsetzung für das Beschwerdeverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 und Abs. 3, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG, die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren auf § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.

Parole chiave

revision admissiondivergencenon-admission complaintcostsvalue in dispute

Estratto da Omnilex

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Omnilex

Questione giuridica chiave

Whether the revision had to be admitted because the OVG judgment deviated from prior Federal Administrative Court case law under § 132(2) No. 2 VwGO.

Decisione estratta

Yes. The lower-court judgment departed from several cited Federal Administrative Court judgments and relied on that deviation, so revision had to be admitted.

Motivazione estratta

A divergence from established Federal Administrative Court decisions, if decisive for the judgment, satisfies § 132(2) No. 2 VwGO and requires admission of the revision.

Questione giuridica chiave

How the costs of the complaint proceedings and the provisional value in dispute had to be determined.

Decisione estratta

The costs decision follows the costs decision in the main proceedings, and the value in dispute was provisionally set at EUR 1,012,500 for both the complaint and revision proceedings.

Motivazione estratta

The court applied the statutory provisions on costs and value in dispute under the GKG.

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.