Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
6 B 5/15, 6 B 5/15 (6 C 24/15) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2015:110815B6B5.15.0 KI-generiert

Telecommunications tariff authorization: contractual prerequisite for private-law effects under § 37(2) TKG

Geschäftsnummer 6 B 5/15, 6 B 5/15 (6 C 24/15)
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Gutgeheissen (Allowed)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Federal Administrative Court allowed the appeal against the lower court's refusal to admit the revision, finding that the case possesses fundamental legal significance; consequently, the plaintiff prevailed on the procedural motion, and the case was referred for full merits review on appeal. The dispute concerned a telecommunications regulatory matter, specifically whether an authorization for tariff rates under § 37(2) of the Telecommunications Act requires a specific contractual claim as a prerequisite for its effect in shaping private legal relationships. The decisive legal basis for the decision was § 132(2) No. 1 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO), which governs the admission of revisions based on fundamental legal significance, alongside §§ 47, 52, and 63 of the Court Costs Act (GKG) for the determination of the value in dispute.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 und 3 GKG; Telecommunications tariff authorization: contractual prerequisite for private-law effects under § 37(2) TKG: The dispute concerned a telecommunications regulatory matter, specifically whether an authorization for tariff rates under § 37(2) of the Telecommunications Act requires a specific contractual claim as a prerequisite for its effect in shaping private legal relationships. The decisive legal basis for the decision was § 132(2) No. 1 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO), which governs the admission of revisions based on fundamental legal significance, alongside §§ 47, 52, and 63 of the Court Costs Act (GKG) for the determination of the value in dispute.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Tarifstreit Revisionsgründe Prozesshandlung Verwaltungskosten kaufmännischer Vertrag gesetzliches Vorkaufsrecht

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for allowing the appeal against the refusal to admit the revision due to fundamental legal significance.
§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG
Procedural rule applied to determine the value in dispute for both the complaint and revision proceedings.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Procedural rule applied to fix the preliminary value in dispute for the revision proceedings.
§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3 GKG
Procedural rule applied to fix the value in dispute for the complaint proceedings.
KI-generiert
6 C 24/15
Scope of privatrechtsgestaltende Wirkung of telecommunication fee approval under § 37(2) TKG
6 B 53/12, 6 B 53/12 (6 C 10/13)
Dependency of final telecommunications fee authorization on prior consultation and consolidation proceedings
6 B 164/18
Binding effect of prior substantive rejection of telecommunications tariff orders under § 25 TKG and § 43 VwVfG
6 B 27/20
Validity of Telecom Fee Approval: Flawed Discretion in Selecting Between Market Benchmarking and Cost Models Under § 35 TKG
6 B 30/15
Telecommunications tariff approval: validity of retroactive one-time fees under repealed TKG 1996 and TEntgV and organizational cost-efficiency standards

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Main ground for allowing the appeal against the refusal to admit the revision due to fundamental legal significance.

§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3 GKG

Procedural rule applied to fix the value in dispute for the complaint proceedings.

§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG

Procedural rule applied to determine the value in dispute for both the complaint and revision proceedings.

§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Procedural rule applied to fix the preliminary value in dispute for the revision proceedings.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

Revisionszulassung, telekommunikationsrechtliche Entgeltgenehmigung

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde der Klägerin gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision ist begründet. Die Rechtssache hat die geltend gemachte grundsätzliche Bedeutung (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO). Sie kann zur Klärung der Frage beitragen, ob die privatrechtsgestaltende Wirkung einer Entgeltgenehmigung nach § 37 Abs. 2 TKG eine vertragliche Anspruchsgrundlage für die Entgeltzahlung voraussetzt.

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