Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
3 B 8/17, 3 B 8/17 (3 C 13/18) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2018:130718B3B8.17.0 AI generated

Scope of §§ 18 ff. AEG 1994 in planning approval for tram line extensions with residual freight traffic on dedicated railway installations

Case Number 3 B 8/17, 3 B 8/17 (3 C 13/18)
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 (BVerwG) granted leave to appeal in a preliminary ruling, finding that the case possesses fundamental significance; consequently, the appellant is permitted to pursue the matter in the full oral revision proceedings. The dispute concerns a planning approval procedure for the extension of a tram line where a portion of the dedicated railway infrastructure will still be used for limited freight traffic, with the central legal question being whether the provisions of §§ 18 ff. of the General Railway Law (AEG) of 1994 apply to such hybrid projects involving dedicated railway installations. The decision rests on § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO regarding fundamental significance, while the temporary determination of the amount in dispute for the upcoming revision proceeding is based on §§ 47 Abs. 1 and 3, 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 und 3, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG; Scope of §§ 18 ff. AEG 1994 in planning approval for tram line extensions with residual freight traffic on dedicated railway installations: The dispute concerns a planning approval procedure for the extension of a tram line where a portion of the dedicated railway infrastructure will still be used for limited freight traffic, with the central legal question being whether the provisions of §§ 18 ff. of the General Railway Law (AEG) of 1994 apply to such hybrid projects involving dedicated railway installations. The decision rests on § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO regarding fundamental significance, while the temporary determination of the amount in dispute for the upcoming revision proceeding is based on §§ 47 Abs. 1 and 3, 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.

Keywords

AI generated
planning approval preliminary ruling procedure extension of proceedings matter in dispute preliminary decision general project

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for granting leave to appeal on the basis of the case's fundamental significance.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
1 und 3, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.
§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Provisions governing the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.
AI generated
3 B 6/17, 3 B 6/17 (3 C 12/18)
Applicability of General Railway Act provisions to tram line extensions with concurrent freight traffic
7 A 9/19
Railway expansion plan approval: procedural relevance of traffic forecasts and applicability of legacy noise calculation standards under § 18g AEG
7 A 10/19
Plan approval for railway expansion: scope of alternative route review under statutory need plans and admissibility of unexposed traffic forecasts
7 VR 5/20, 7 VR 5/20 (7 A 14/20)
Interim relief against immediate enforceability of federal rail infrastructure planning approval under § 18e AEG
7 C 14/13
Hangsicherungsmaßnahmen am Schienenweg: Eisenbahnbetriebsbezogenheit und Planfeststellungspflicht nach § 18 AEG

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Main ground for granting leave to appeal on the basis of the case's fundamental significance.

§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Provisions governing 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; Anwendbarkeit der §§ 18 ff. AEG 1994; Verlängerung einer Straßenbahnlinie bei stattfindendem Güterverkehr

[GRUENDE]

Die Sache hat grundsätzliche Bedeutung (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO). Das angestrebte Revisionsverfahren wird dem Senat Gelegenheit geben, unter anderem die Frage zu klären, ob für das Planfeststellungsverfahren zur Änderung von für den Eisenbahnverkehr gewidmeten Betriebsanlagen die §§ 18 ff. AEG zur Anwendung kommen, wenn das Vorhaben der Verlängerung einer Straßenbahnlinie dient, dort aber zugleich in geringem Umfang weiterhin Güterverkehr stattfinden soll.

Die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1 und 3, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.