Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
8 B 68/16, 8 B 68/16 (8 C 10/17) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2017:050417B8B68.16.0 AI generated

Scope of fractional restitution for expropriated company shares with assets in reunification area: object-less beneficiary determination versus specific asset claims

Case Number 8 B 68/16, 8 B 68/16 (8 C 10/17)
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 defendant's complaint and allowed the revision appeal based on fundamental significance, leaving the prior instance decisions pending further review on the merits. The dispute concerned a restitution claim under the Restitution Act, specifically whether an entitlement to a fractional share of restitution can be established for assets expropriated outside the spatial scope of § 1(6) VermG (German Restitution Act) but belonging to a company located in West Germany with assets in the reunification area. The decisive legal issue, which necessitates the revision, is whether the statute permits an "object-less" determination of the beneficiary's entitlement proportional to the expropriated share, or restricts it to specific, individually reclaimed assets, governed by § 132(2) No. 1 VwGO (Administrative Court Rules of Procedure).

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 GKG, § 52 Abs. 2 GKG; Scope of fractional restitution for expropriated company shares with assets in reunification area: object-less beneficiary determination versus specific asset claims: The dispute concerned a restitution claim under the Restitution Act, specifically whether an entitlement to a fractional share of restitution can be established for assets expropriated outside the spatial scope of § 1(6) VermG (German Restitution Act) but belonging to a company located in West Germany with assets in the reunification area. The decisive legal issue, which necessitates the revision, is whether the statute permits an "object-less" determination of the beneficiary's entitlement proportional to the expropriated share, or restricts it to specific, individually reclaimed assets, governed by § 132(2) No. 1 VwGO (Administrative Court Rules of Procedure).

Keywords

AI generated
restitution of expropriated property restricted assets company share scope of review corporate restructuring for tax purposes divestment of bankruptcy assets

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Basis for admitting the revision due to fundamental significance.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Legal basis cited for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.
§ 47 Abs. 1 GKG
Legal basis cited for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.
§ 52 Abs. 2 GKG
Legal basis cited for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.
AI generated
8 B 1/15
Extent of fractional restitution under the Property Restoration Act for post-expropriation acquisitions by the expropriated entity
8 B 48/16, 8 B 48/16 (8 C 2/17)
Prerequisites for fractional restitution of expropriated corporate shares under § 3 Abs. 1 Satz 4 Halbs. 2 VermG
8 C 10/16
Prerequisite of prior restitution for fractional restitution claims based on expropriation of Western shareholdings in holding companies with assets in the accession area
8 C 3/17
Validity of fractional restitution compensation applications: requirement for specific asset identification and prohibition of objectless entitlement declarations
8 C 4/17
Partial restitution compensation: specific identification of assets required for valid application and prohibition of "object-less" entitlement findings

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Basis for admitting the revision due to fundamental significance.

§ 47 Abs. 1 GKG

Legal basis cited for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.

§ 52 Abs. 2 GKG

Legal basis cited for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.

§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Legal basis cited for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.

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; Bruchteilsrestitutionsberechtigung

[GRUENDE]

Die zulässige Beschwerde der Beklagten ist begründet. Die Revision ist gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung zuzulassen. Das Revisionsverfahren führt auf die Frage, ob eine Bruchteilsrestitutionsberechtigung wegen einer nicht in den räumlichen Geltungsbereich des § 1 Abs. 6 VermG fallenden Entziehung von Anteilen an einem in Westdeutschland belegenen Unternehmen, dem Vermögensgegenstände im Beitrittsgebiet gehörten, nur bezüglich bestimmter, anteilig zurückverlangter Vermögensgegenstände getroffen werden kann, oder ob das Gesetz auch eine "objektlose" Berechtigtenfeststellung in Höhe der entzogenen Beteiligung zulässt.

Die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 2, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.