BVerwG 4 BN 61/09, 4 BN 61/09 (4 CN 2/10)•Revision admissible: effect of missing balancing on zoning ordinance validity
BVerwG 4 BN 61/09, 4 BN 61/09 (4 CN 2/10)Bverwg / 4a divisione6 gen 2010Granted
Estratto da Omnilex
The Federal Administrative Court admitted the revision against the Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate’s judgment. The court held that the complaint was well-founded because the case presents a question of fundamental importance: whether a complete failure to conduct the balancing required for a zoning ordinance can nevertheless become harmless under § 215 BauGB. No merits decision was made; the ruling concerns only admissibility of revision.
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; admissibility of revision for fundamental importance where the validity of a zoning ordinance is disputed in light of a complete absence of balancing. A complaint is well-founded if the contested case raises a revisable legal question capable of clarification in revision proceedings. It is of fundamental importance whether, and under what conditions, a total failure to carry out the required balancing under the Baugesetzbuch may be rendered harmless by § 215 BauGB; this question is suitable for clarification in cassation review (consid. 1).
Entscheidungsdatum: 2010-01-06
Aktenzeichen: 4 BN 61/09, 4 BN 61/09 (4 CN 2/10)
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 215 BauGB, § 132 Abs 2 Nr 1 VwGO
Vorinstanz: vorgehend Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, 12. August 2009, Az: 1 C 11373/08, Urteil
Spruchkörper: 4. Senat
Revisionszulassung; Wirksamkeit einer Satzung bei fehlender Abwägung
1 Die Beschwerde ist begründet. Die Revision ist wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO) zuzulassen. Das Revisionsverfahren kann zur Klärung der Frage beitragen, ob und gegebenenfalls unter welchen Voraussetzungen das vollständige Fehlen einer erforderlichen Abwägung für die Wirksamkeit einer Satzung nach dem Baugesetzbuch gemäß § 215 BauGB unbeachtlich werden kann.
Estratto da Omnilex
Whether revision should be admitted for fundamental importance under § 132(2) no. 1 VwGO.
Yes. The complaint succeeds and revision is admitted because the case raises a question of fundamental importance.
The revision proceedings may clarify whether, and under what conditions, a complete absence of the balancing required for a zoning ordinance can become ineffective or harmless under § 215 BauGB.
Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.