Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
7 B 15/16, 7 B 15/16 (7 C 27/17) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2017:310717B7B15.16.0 AI generated

Scope of environmental impact assessment: cumulative effects of unapproved projects and chronological ranking of applications

Case Number 7 B 15/16, 7 B 15/16 (7 C 27/17)
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 ordered the admission of the plaintiff's appeal in legal revision, thereby rejecting the defendant's position and allowing the case to proceed to the Senate for substantive review. The dispute concerned an appeal against a decision refusing to admit revision, challenging the lower court's interpretation of environmental compatibility assessment requirements in project approval procedures. The decisive legal basis was § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO, under which the court found a divergence from established jurisprudence; specifically, the lower court incorrectly applied a rule-based ranking of cumulative environmental impacts based on the chronological order of filing eligible approval applications, whereas Federal Administrative Court precedent mandates that the compatibility assessment be extended to other projects only when their impacts are reliably foreseeable, which generally occurs only after the relevant approval decision has been granted.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 und Abs. 3, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG; Scope of environmental impact assessment: cumulative effects of unapproved projects and chronological ranking of applications: The dispute concerned an appeal against a decision refusing to admit revision, challenging the lower court's interpretation of environmental compatibility assessment requirements in project approval procedures. The decisive legal basis was § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO, under which the court found a divergence from established jurisprudence; specifically, the lower court incorrectly applied a rule-based ranking of cumulative environmental impacts based on the chronological order of filing eligible approval applications, whereas Federal Administrative Court precedent mandates that the compatibility assessment be extended to other projects only when their impacts are reliably foreseeable, which generally occurs only after the relevant approval decision has been granted.

Keywords

AI generated
environmental impact assessment application for revision scope of review substantive requirements assessment procedures environmental compliance review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO
Main legal ground cited for admitting the revision due to the alleged divergence in legal interpretation.
§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG
3, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG, für das Revisionsverfahren auf § 47 Abs.
§ 63 Abs. 1 GKG
Die Festsetzung des Streitwerts beruht für das Beschwerdeverfahren auf § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 und Abs. 3, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG, für das Revisionsverfahren auf § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG.
§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 und Abs. 3, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG
Provisions cited for the determination of the amount in dispute (Streitwert) for the complaint proceedings.
§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG
Provisions cited for the determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
BVerwGE 141, 171
November 2011 - 9 A 23.10 - BVerwGE 141, 171 Rn.
AI generated
7 B 10/17, 7 B 10/17 (7 C 4/18)
Species protection in site-specific preliminary review under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act
4 B 3.25
Revisibility of federal environmental impact assessment norms incorporated into state law via legislative mandate
7 B 13/17, 7 B 13/17 (7 C 7/18)
Scope of species protection considerations in site-specific environmental impact assessment pre-screening
4 BN 3/23, 4 BN 3/23 (4 CN 2/23)
Scope of mandatory impact assessment for projects listed in UVPG Annex 1 No. 18 via § 2 Abs. 6 Nr. 3 UVPG
4 B 38/12
Transition rule for Environmental Impact Assessment: triggering event for pre-2005 procedure start and automatic annulment of permits lacking EIA.

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO

Main legal ground cited for admitting the revision due to the alleged divergence in legal interpretation.

§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 und Abs. 3, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG

Provisions cited for the determination of the amount in dispute (Streitwert) for the complaint proceedings.

§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG

Provisions cited for the 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; Divergenz; Verträglichkeitsprüfung

[GRUENDE]

Die zulässige Beschwerde des Klägers ist begründet. Die Revision ist gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO jedenfalls wegen der gerügten Divergenz zuzulassen. Nach der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts ist die Verträglichkeitsprüfung auf andere Projekte zu erstrecken, wenn deren Auswirkungen und damit das Ausmaß der Summationswirkung verlässlich absehbar ist, was grundsätzlich erst dann der Fall ist, wenn die betreffende Zulassungsentscheidung erteilt ist (vgl. BVerwG, Urteile vom 21. Mai 2008 - 9 A 68.07 - Buchholz 406.400 § 34 BNatSchG 2002 Nr. 1 Rn. 21, vom 24.

November 2011 - 9 A 23.10 - BVerwGE 141, 171 Rn. 40, vom 15. Juli 2016 - 9 C 3.16 - NVwZ 2016, 1631 Rn. 56 und vom 9. Februar 2017 - 7 A 2.15 - juris Rn. 219; Beschlüsse vom 9. Dezember 2011 - 9 B 44.11 - Buchholz 406.400 § 34 BNatSchG 2002 Nr. 7 Rn. 3 und vom 28. November 2013 - 9 B 14.13 - UPR 2014, 141 Rn. 11). Davon ist das Oberverwaltungsgericht in dem angegriffenen Urteil abgewichen, indem es im Rahmen der Summationsbetrachtung regelhaft auf eine Rangfolge der Belastungsbeiträge entsprechend der zeitlichen Reihenfolge der Einreichung eines prüffähigen Genehmigungsantrags abstellt.

Die Festsetzung des Streitwerts beruht für das Beschwerdeverfahren auf § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 und Abs. 3, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG, für das Revisionsverfahren auf § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG.