Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
8 B 55/11, 8 B 55/11 (8 C 4/12) KI-generiert

Restitution exclusion under § 1 Abs. 8 Buchst. a VermG for Berlin asset seizures where pre-1949 confiscation is unproven

Geschäftsnummer 8 B 55/11, 8 B 55/11 (8 C 4/12)
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Gutgeheissen (Allowed)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Federal Administrative Court admitted the appeal against the refusal to allow revision, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs and overturning the lower court's finding of a restitution exclusion. The dispute centered on the legal validity of asset seizures in Berlin that had been listed in a 1949 nationalization list based on the 1949 Act on the Confiscation of Assets of War Criminals and Nazi Activists. The decisive legal basis was § 132(2) No. 2 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act, as the lower court's interpretation diverged from established Federal Administrative Court precedents; specifically, the appellate court erred by applying the restitution exclusion under § 1(8) letter a of the Restitution Act merely because the absence of a pre-1949 seizure could not be established, rather than adhering to the required standard of proof for such exceptional circumstances.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO, § 133 Abs. 3 Satz 3 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 GKG, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG, § 52 Abs. 4 GKG; Restitution exclusion under § 1 Abs. 8 Buchst. a VermG for Berlin asset seizures where pre-1949 confiscation is unproven: The dispute centered on the legal validity of asset seizures in Berlin that had been listed in a 1949 nationalization list based on the 1949 Act on the Confiscation of Assets of War Criminals and Nazi Activists. The decisive legal basis was § 132(2) No. 2 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act, as the lower court's interpretation diverged from established Federal Administrative Court precedents; specifically, the appellate court erred by applying the restitution exclusion under § 1(8) letter a of the Restitution Act merely because the absence of a pre-1949 seizure could not be established, rather than adhering to the required standard of proof for such exceptional circumstances.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
strafrechtliche Einziehung Rückgabe verstaatlichten Eigentums Verwaltungsvermögen Auslegung von Urteilen strafrechtliches Revisionsverfahren ausserordentliche Umstände

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO
Procedural rule cited as the legal basis for admitting the complaint against the non-acceptance of revision due to divergence from previous Federal Administrative Court judgments.
§ 133 Abs. 3 Satz 3 VwGO
Dies haben die Kläger entsprechend den in § 133 Abs. 3 Satz 3 VwGO enthaltenen Anforderungen sinngemäß dargelegt.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Provision cited for the interim determination of the amount in dispute for the costs of the revision proceedings.
§ 47 Abs. 1 GKG
Provision cited for the interim determination of the amount in dispute for the costs of the revision proceedings.
§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG
Provision cited for the interim determination of the amount in dispute for the costs of the revision proceedings.
§ 52 Abs. 4 GKG
Provision cited for the interim determination of the amount in dispute for the costs of the revision proceedings.

Zitierte Rechtsprechung

KI-generiert
BVerwGE 101, 201
Mai 1996 - BVerwG 7 C 55.95 - (BVerwGE 101, 201 = Buchholz 428 § 1 VermG Nr.
KI-generiert
8 B 32/22
Restitution of Nazi-expropriated property in Brandenburg: substantiation of right-to-be-heard violations and evidentiary value of post-war documents under § 1 Abs. 6 VermG
8 B 21/18
Restitution claim under the German Property Act: whether Nazi-era administrative controls and new documentary evidence constitute an expropriation of assets "in another way" for post-war expropriated estates
8 B 23/18
Restitution claim for Nazi-era expropriation: sufficiency of new evidence to prove total deprivation of property under § 1 Abs. 6 VermG
8 B 15/18
Restitution of Nazi-era expropriated property: sufficiency of newly submitted evidence to prove "property loss on other ways" under § 1 Abs. 6 VermG
8 B 35/13
Restitution of NS-era expropriated estates: substantiation of non-admission of revision regarding "dispossession by other means" under § 1 Abs. 6 VermG

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO

Procedural rule cited as the legal basis for admitting the complaint against the non-acceptance of revision due to divergence from previous Federal Administrative Court judgments.

§ 47 Abs. 1 GKG

Provision cited for the interim determination of the amount in dispute for the costs of the revision proceedings.

§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG

Provision cited for the interim determination of the amount in dispute for the costs of the revision proceedings.

§ 52 Abs. 4 GKG

Provision cited for the interim determination of the amount in dispute for the costs of the revision proceedings.

§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Provision cited for the interim determination of the amount in dispute for the costs of 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 wegen Divergenz; Restitutionsausschluss; Einziehung von Vermögenswerten

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision ist begründet. Das angefochtene Urteil weicht im Sinne des § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO von den Urteilen des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts vom 30. Mai 1996 - BVerwG 7 C 55.95 - (BVerwGE 101, 201 = Buchholz 428 § 1 VermG Nr. 77) und vom 13. Dezember 2006 - BVerwG 8 C 25.05 - (Buchholz 428 § 1 Abs. 8 VermG Nr. 34) ab und beruht auf dieser Abweichung, soweit es einen Restitutionsausschluss nach § 1 Abs. 8 Buchst. a VermG für in Berlin belegene Vermögenswerte, die Gegenstand der auf der Grundlage des Berliner (Magistrats-)Gesetzes zur Einziehung von Vermögenswerten der Kriegsverbrecher und Naziaktivisten vom 8. Februar 1949 (VOBl für Groß-Berlin 1949 I, 34) am 2. Dezember 1949 veröffentlichten Enteignungsliste 3 (VOBl für Groß-Berlin 1949 I, 429) waren, auch dann annimmt, wenn "nicht festgestellt werden" kann, dass "der Ausnahmefall fehlender Beschlagnahme vor dem 8. Februar 1949 vorliegt". Dies haben die Kläger entsprechend den in § 133 Abs. 3 Satz 3 VwGO enthaltenen Anforderungen sinngemäß dargelegt.

Die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und 4, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.