projetos

Revision admissible on extension of exclusion period

BVerwG 3 B 36/10, 3 B 36/10 (3 C 38/10)Bverwg / Divisão 38 de dez. de 2010Granted

Abrir fonte

Extraído pela Omnilex

Resumo Omnilex

The Federal Administrative Court granted the complaint against non-admission of revision. It held that the case has fundamental significance because revision could clarify whether the four-year exclusion period under Section 349(5) sentence 4 half-sentence 1 LAG may be extended by interruptions beyond the ten-year limit mentioned in half-sentence 2. The court referred to its earlier 2008 judgment as the background for the unresolved question. The order also contains the statutory basis for the amount in dispute in the revision proceedings.

Sumário Omnilex

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; admissibility of revision for fundamental significance concerning the interpretation of § 349 Abs. 5 sentence 4 LAG: A complaint against denial of leave to appeal is well founded where the proceedings are likely to afford an opportunity to clarify an unresolved legal question of general importance. The question whether the four-year exclusion period in § 349 Abs. 5 sentence 4 half-sentence 1 LAG may, by interruptions, be extended beyond the ten-year period referred to in half-sentence 2 is of such fundamental significance, especially where prior case law does not yet conclusively settle the issue (cf. consid. 1).

Texto completo

BVerwG — 3 B 36/10, 3 B 36/10 (3 C 38/10), Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2010-12-08

Aktenzeichen: 3 B 36/10, 3 B 36/10 (3 C 38/10)

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Normen: § 349 Abs 5 S 4 Halbs 1 LAG, § 349 Abs 5 S 4 Halbs 2 LAG, § 349 Abs 5 S 5 LAG, § 132 Abs 2 Nr 1 VwGO

Vorinstanz: vorgehend VG Karlsruhe, 24. März 2010, Az: 6 K 3969/09, Urteil

Spruchkörper: 3. Senat

Titelzeile

Rückforderung von Lastenausgleichsleistungen; Verlängerung der Ausschlussfrist; Revisionszulassung

Gründe

1 Die Beschwerde ist begründet. Die Rechtssache hat grundsätzliche Bedeutung im Sinne von § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO. Das Revisionsverfahren kann dem Senat voraussichtlich Gelegenheit geben, im Anschluss an sein Urteil vom 30. April 2008 - BVerwG 3 C 17.07 - (Buchholz 427.3 § 349 LAG Nr. 15) abschließend zu klären, ob die vierjährige Frist nach § 349 Abs. 5 Satz 4 Halbs. 1 LAG durch Unterbrechungen über die in Halbs. 2 der Vorschrift genannten zehn Jahre hinaus erstreckt werden kann.

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

Palavras-chave

revision admissibilityfundamental significanceexclusion periodcompensation equalizationstatutory interpretation

Extraído pela Omnilex

Questões jurídicas principais extraídas pela Omnilex

Questão jurídica principal

Whether revision should be admitted because the case has fundamental significance under Section 132(2) No. 1 VwGO.

Decisão extraída

Yes. The complaint was well-founded because the legal question is of fundamental significance.

Fundamentação extraída

The revision could likely clarify, in follow-up to the court's 2008 case law, whether the four-year period in Section 349(5) sentence 4 half-sentence 1 LAG may be extended by interruptions beyond the ten years mentioned in half-sentence 2.

Questão jurídica principal

How to interpret the exclusion period in Section 349(5) sentence 4 LAG, specifically whether interruptions can extend it beyond ten years.

Decisão extraída

The court did not decide the substantive question, but identified it as unresolved and suitable for clarification in revision.

Fundamentação extraída

The case was admitted so that the revision court could potentially settle the scope of the exclusion period after earlier precedent.

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.