Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
4 B 37/15, 4 B 37/15 (4 C 3/16) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2016:070416B4B37.15.0 AI generated

Assessing emission impact for expansion of legal facilities in residential areas under the duty of consideration

Case Number 4 B 37/15, 4 B 37/15 (4 C 3/16)
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Administrative Court granted the applicant's complaint and admitted the revision appeal, ruling in favor of the party challenging the prior appellate decision. The dispute concerned a planning objection against the expansion of an existing legal industrial facility located in an outer-area zone adjacent to residential buildings, where the lower court had required a full conformity review of the new construction regardless of the change in emission levels. The decisive legal basis was § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO (admissibility of revision due to divergence), applied to the doctrine that the duty of consideration for legally established operations in non-residential zones requires assessing only whether an expansion worsens the existing emission situation, provided existing burdens do not already constitute a severe and intolerable interference under § 22 Federal Immission Control Act (BImSchG); the court held that the lower court's requirement to verify compliance with all current regulations independent of the impact on the specific residential neighborhood diverged from established case law.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO, § 35 BauGB, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG; Assessing emission impact for expansion of legal facilities in residential areas under the duty of consideration: The dispute concerned a planning objection against the expansion of an existing legal industrial facility located in an outer-area zone adjacent to residential buildings, where the lower court had required a full conformity review of the new construction regardless of the change in emission levels. The decisive legal basis was § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO (admissibility of revision due to divergence), applied to the doctrine that the duty of consideration for legally established operations in non-residential zones requires assessing only whether an expansion worsens the existing emission situation, provided existing burdens do not already constitute a severe and intolerable interference under § 22 Federal Immission Control Act (BImSchG); the court held that the lower court's requirement to verify compliance with all current regulations independent of the impact on the specific residential neighborhood diverged from established case law.

Keywords

AI generated
residential zone environmental impact assessment revision proceedings legal doctrine non-administrative dispute administrative compliance

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO
Serves as the main legal ground for admitting the revision appeal due to a divergence between the lower court's decision and established federal case law.
§ 35 BauGB
Juni 1990 - 4 C 6.87 - Buchholz 406.11 § 35 BauGB Nr.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Cited in the dispositive as part of the legal basis for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute.
§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Cited in the dispositive as the basis for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.
§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG
Cited in the dispositive as part of the legal basis for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute.
AI generated
4 B 58/17
Interpretation of the mutual duty of consideration and formation of intermediate emission values at the boundary of different zoning areas
4 BN 4/21
Balancing obligation in zoning: awareness of predecessor plan noise allowances and validity of immission-to-emission limit conversion
4 B 44/19
Noise emissions from outdoor gastronomy in a residential zone: application of the duty of consideration and validity of short-term noise measurements under TA Lärm
4 B 37/18
Partially invalid emission-protection clauses in a development plan and their impact on total plan validity and area designation
7 B 15/16, 7 B 15/16 (7 C 27/17)
Scope of environmental impact assessment: cumulative effects of unapproved projects and chronological ranking of applications

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO

Serves as the main legal ground for admitting the revision appeal due to a divergence between the lower court's decision and established federal case law.

§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Cited in the dispositive as the basis for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.

§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG

Cited in the dispositive as part of the legal basis for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute.

§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Cited in the dispositive as part of the legal basis for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Revisionszulassung; Divergenz hinsichtlich des Prüfungsprogramms bei der der Beurteilung der Zulässigkeit einer Erweiterung eines immissionsschutzrechtlich legalen Betriebs

[GRUENDE]

Die zulässige Beschwerde ist begründet. Die Revision ist nach § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO wegen Divergenz zuzulassen. Nach der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts müssen im Außenbereich ansässige Betriebe auf die benachbarte Wohnbebauung Rücksicht nehmen. Welche Anforderungen das Gebot der Rücksichtnahme (objektivrechtlich) stellt, hängt wesentlich von den jeweiligen Umständen ab. Dabei dürfen bestehende Vorbelastungen nicht außer Betracht bleiben. Was von einem genehmigten Betrieb - legal - an Belastungen verursacht wird und sich auf eine vorhandene Wohnbebauung auswirkt, kann deren Schutzwürdigkeit mindern.

Daraus folgt, dass - sofern nicht die vorhandenen Immissionen bereits die Grenze des schweren und unerträglichen Eingriffs überschreiten und auch die Voraussetzungen des § 22 Bundes-Immissionsschutzgesetz nicht vorliegen - bei der Erweiterung eines legalen Betriebes nur zu prüfen ist, ob eine Verschlechterung der Immissionslage zu erwarten ist (BVerwG, Urteil vom 22. Juni 1990 - 4 C 6.87 - Buchholz 406.11 § 35 BauGB Nr. 261 = juris Rn. 29 m.w.N.). Von dieser Rechtsprechung ist das Oberverwaltungsgericht in dem angefochtenen Berufungsurteil entscheidungserheblich abgewichen, indem es ausgeführt hat, jedes neue Bauvorhaben müsse daraufhin überprüft werden, ob es mit den geltenden Vorschriften in Einklang stehe, und zwar unabhängig davon, ob sich die vorhandene Situation "zum Schlechten" verändere oder - wie hier - sogar leicht verbessere (UA S. 7).

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