Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
3 C 1/17 ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2017:270217B3C1.17.0 KI-generiert

Inadmissibility of revision against war prisoner care claims and inapplicability of social welfare fee exemption under VwGO § 188

Geschäftsnummer 3 C 1/17
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Nichteintreten / Unzulässig (Inadmissible)
Kostenauflage keine Kosten erhoben
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's revision as inadmissible, leaving the lower court's judgment in force. The dispute concerned a challenge to a first-instance decision regarding claims for war prisoner care under the Hague Convention on Land Warfare, where the appellant contested the procedural handling and the associated cost rules. The court ruled that the revision was procedurally barred because the contested decision to refer the case to a single judge was not subject to appeal, and the underlying judicial order had not been granted leave for revision. Regarding costs, the court held that the general exemption from court fees applicable to social welfare matters under § 188 Sentence 2 VwGO did not extend to war prisoner compensation claims, distinguishing them from statutory social welfare benefits, and thus applied standard fee rules under the Court Fees Act.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 188 Satz 2 VwGO, § 135 VwGO, § 84 Abs. 2 Nr. 3 VwGO, § 154 Abs. 2 VwGO, § 21 Abs. 1 Satz 3 GKG, § 132 Abs. 1 VwGO; Inadmissibility of revision against war prisoner care claims and inapplicability of social welfare fee exemption under VwGO § 188: The dispute concerned a challenge to a first-instance decision regarding claims for war prisoner care under the Hague Convention on Land Warfare, where the appellant contested the procedural handling and the associated cost rules. The court ruled that the revision was procedurally barred because the contested decision to refer the case to a single judge was not subject to appeal, and the underlying judicial order had not been granted leave for revision. Regarding costs, the court held that the general exemption from court fees applicable to social welfare matters under § 188 Sentence 2 VwGO did not extend to war prisoner compensation claims, distinguishing them from statutory social welfare benefits, and thus applied standard fee rules under the Court Fees Act.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
prozessuale Revision Kriegsgefangener Haager Übereinkommen Anfechtung von Verwaltungsverfügungen unerlaubtes Wegbleiben Gefangener

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 188 Satz 2 VwGO
Cited to explain that the exemption from litigation costs for social welfare matters does not apply to war prisoner compensation claims.
§ 135 VwGO
Cited as part of the procedural framework defining which first-instance decisions may be challenged by revision.
§ 84 Abs. 2 Nr. 3 VwGO
Basis for declaring the revision against the judicial order inadmissible due to the absence of express leave for appeal.
§ 154 Abs. 2 VwGO
Provision governing the allocation of litigation costs between the parties.
§ 21 Abs. 1 Satz 3 GKG
Rule for determining that no court fees are to be collected in this specific instance.
§ 132 Abs. 1 VwGO
Cited to establish that the decision referring the case to a single judge is not an appealable order under the revision procedure.
§ 134 Abs. 1 Satz 1 VwGO
Cited to confirm that the reference to the single judge does not fall within the categories of decisions subject to revision.
KI-generiert
1 WB 59/13
Inadmissibility of post-filing claim amendment in military service complaint proceedings under VwGO § 91
2 B 72/12
Discharge of soldier on time: inadmissibility of revision complaint instead of appeal admissibility
B 9 V 3/21 R
Unfulfilled administrative procedure and res judicata as grounds for inadmissibility of social benefit revision
B 5 R 32/14 R
Inadmissibility of revision for failure to specify lower court’s factual findings and engage with its legal reasoning on offsetting injury pension against old-age pension using reduced East Germany threshold
2 WRB 2/23
Inadmissibility of appeal in military disciplinary cost disputes despite tribunal authorization

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 132 Abs. 1 VwGO

Cited to establish that the decision referring the case to a single judge is not an appealable order under the revision procedure.

§ 134 Abs. 1 Satz 1 VwGO

Cited to confirm that the reference to the single judge does not fall within the categories of decisions subject to revision.

§ 135 VwGO

Cited as part of the procedural framework defining which first-instance decisions may be challenged by revision.

§ 84 Abs. 2 Nr. 3 VwGO

Basis for declaring the revision against the judicial order inadmissible due to the absence of express leave for appeal.

§ 154 Abs. 2 VwGO

Provision governing the allocation of litigation costs between the parties.

§ 21 Abs. 1 Satz 3 GKG

Rule for determining that no court fees are to be collected in this specific instance.

§ 188 Satz 2 VwGO

Cited to explain that the exemption from litigation costs for social welfare matters does not apply to war prisoner compensation claims.

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

Unstatthafte Revision gegen erstinstanzliche Entscheidungen

[LEITSATZ]

Die Regelung über die Kostenfreiheit in den Sachgebieten der Fürsorge nach § 188 Satz 2 VwGO gilt nicht für Ansprüche auf Kriegsgefangenenfürsorge (hier nach der Haager Landkriegsordnung).

[GRUENDE]

Die Revision ist unzulässig und deshalb zu verwerfen.

Die Übertragung des Rechtsstreits auf den Einzelrichter durch Beschluss vom 8. September 2016 gehört nicht zu den Entscheidungen, die Gegenstand einer Revision sein können (§ 132 Abs. 1, § 134 Abs. 1 Satz 1 und § 135 VwGO).

Gegen einen Gerichtsbescheid kann Revision nur eingelegt werden, wenn sie zugelassen worden ist (§ 84 Abs. 2 Nr. 3 VwGO). Das ist in dem angefochtenen Gerichtsbescheid vom 9. September 2016 nicht geschehen.

Die Kostenentscheidung folgt aus § 154 Abs. 2 VwGO. Gerichtskosten werden gemäß § 21 Abs. 1 Satz 3 GKG nicht erhoben. Die Regelung des § 188 Satz 2 VwGO ist nicht einschlägig, weil Ansprüche auf Kriegsgefangenenentschädigung (hier nach der Haager Landkriegsordnung vom 18. Oktober 1907, RGBl. II 1910, 107) nicht zu einem Sachgebiet der Fürsorge im Sinne dieser Vorschrift gehören (vgl. BVerwG, Urteil vom 17. Januar 1980 - 5 C 62.78 - Buchholz 412.4 § 2 KgfEG Nr. 38 S. 14 f. zur Entschädigung nach dem Kriegsgefangenenentschädigungsgesetz).