Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
9 B 30/11, 9 B 30/11 (9 C 12/11) KI-generiert

Municipal costs for extra-district pipeline installations: admissibility as urban planning follow-up costs under § 11(1) sentence 2 no. 3 BauGB

Geschäftsnummer 9 B 30/11, 9 B 30/11 (9 C 12/11)
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Gutgeheissen (Allowed)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Federal Administrative Court dismissed the defendant's complaint and admitted the revision for further review, determining that the case raises a question of fundamental legal significance. The dispute concerns whether a municipality's financial contributions for pipeline installations located outside a designated development area, which are generally subject to compulsory fees under the State Municipal Levy Act, can be validly transferred through an urban planning follow-up cost agreement. The decisive legal issue is the compatibility of such cost-shifting mechanisms with the statutory definition of urban planning follow-up costs under § 11 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Nr. 3 of the German Building Code (BauGB), a question the higher court must now resolve.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 11 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Nr. 3 BauGB; Municipal costs for extra-district pipeline installations: admissibility as urban planning follow-up costs under § 11(1) sentence 2 no. 3 BauGB: The dispute concerns whether a municipality's financial contributions for pipeline installations located outside a designated development area, which are generally subject to compulsory fees under the State Municipal Levy Act, can be validly transferred through an urban planning follow-up cost agreement. The decisive legal issue is the compatibility of such cost-shifting mechanisms with the statutory definition of urban planning follow-up costs under § 11 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Nr. 3 of the German Building Code (BauGB), a question the higher court must now resolve.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
städtische Infrastruktur Planungskosten Verwaltungskostenbeitrag Stadentwicklung Anwaltskosten Gemeindeaufgabe
KI-generiert
WBRE201600382
Preliminary levies for development contributions: validity of unified billing for distinct street sections under § 130(2) sentence 3 BauGB
WBRE201900209
Scope of municipal discretion in calculating infrastructure contributions where zoning plans impose varying height restrictions on property segments
WBRE202000647
Urban Development Compensation: Exclusion of Non-Sanierungsbedingte Value Increases and Burden of Proof for External Effects under BauGB §§ 153, 154
JURE140011137
Construction cost contribution for sewage connection: whether prior treatment via private small-scale clarifier with public overflow precludes "first-time" connection to public was
WBRE201500019
Municipal development contribution for property extending into outer area: Precedence of clarification statute over statutory depth limit for determining the developed area under §

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Procedural basis cited in the dispositive to admit the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question.

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

Aufwendungen für leitungsgebundene Anlage und städtebaulicher Folgelastenvertrag

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde der Beklagten ist zulässig und begründet. Die Revision ist gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache zuzulassen. Sie kann dem Bundesverwaltungsgericht Gelegenheit zur Klärung der Frage geben, ob die Übernahme von Aufwendungen der Gemeinde für außerhalb eines Erschließungsgebiets gelegene leitungsgebundene Anlagen, die grundsätzlich der Beitragspflicht nach dem Landes-Kommunalabgabengesetz unterliegen, Gegenstand eines städtebaulichen Folgelastenvertrages i.S.v. § 11 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Nr. 3 BauGB sein kann.