Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
7 B 4/20, 7 B 4/20 (7 C 9/20) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2020:091020B7B4.20.0 AI generated

Demarcation between Federal and State Law in the Interpretation of Non-Deviating Content of Section 34 WHG

Case Number 7 B 4/20, 7 B 4/20 (7 C 9/20)
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) allowed the appeal (Revision) and vacated the decision of the Saxon Higher Administrative Court which had refused to admit it, resolving the admissibility dispute in favor of the plaintiff. The case concerns the interpretation and scope of Section 34 of the Foreign Trade and Payments Act (WHG), specifically regarding the demarcation of its non-deviable content from supplementary provisions enacted by state law. The admission was granted on the basis of the fundamental significance of the legal issue under Section 132(2) No. 1 VwGO, as the appeal may clarify the boundaries between federal statutory core and state-level elaborations.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG; Demarcation between Federal and State Law in the Interpretation of Non-Deviating Content of Section 34 WHG: The case concerns the interpretation and scope of Section 34 of the Foreign Trade and Payments Act (WHG), specifically regarding the demarcation of its non-deviable content from supplementary provisions enacted by state law. The admission was granted on the basis of the fundamental significance of the legal issue under Section 132(2) No. 1 VwGO, as the appeal may clarify the boundaries between federal statutory core and state-level elaborations.

Keywords

AI generated
demarcation of boundaries foreign law non-administrative dispute interpretation of the law statutory basis provisional payment

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for admitting the appeal due to the fundamental significance of the legal issue.
§ 63 Abs. 1 GKG
Provision cited for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute.
§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Provision cited for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute.
§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG
Provision cited for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute.
AI generated
9 B 3/21
Revisibility of State Law Interpretation: BVerwG Bound by OVG Reading of Municipal Levies Act Despite Federal Court Divergence
8 B 51/19, 8 B 51/19 (8 C 25/19)
Divergence in interpretation of textually identical state and federal administrative procedure statutes permits revision under § 132(2) No. 2 VwGO
9 B 28/20
Irrevisibility of divergent state and federal court interpretations of municipal sewer contribution prescription rules
6 B 2.25
Interpretation of irrevisable state law and the non-applicability of general statutory construction principles in revision proceedings
6 B 125/18
Revision Inadmissibility Due to Exclusive Interpretation of Non-Revisable State School Financing Law

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Main ground for admitting the appeal due to the fundamental significance of the legal issue.

§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Provision cited for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute.

§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG

Provision cited for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute.

§ 63 Abs. 1 GKG

Provision cited 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; § 34 WHG Abgrenzung und Ergänzung

[TENOR]

Die Entscheidung des Sächsischen Oberverwaltungsgerichts vom 11. Dezember 2019 über die Nichtzulassung der Revision wird aufgehoben.

Die Revision wird zugelassen.

Die Kostenentscheidung bleibt der Endentscheidung vorbehalten.

Der Wert des Streitgegenstandes wird für das Revisionsverfahren vorläufig auf 135 000 € festgesetzt.

[GRUENDE]

Die zulässige Beschwerde der Klägerin ist begründet. Die Revision ist wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache zuzulassen (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO). Das Revisionsverfahren kann voraussichtlich zur Abgrenzung des abweichungsfesten Inhalts von § 34 WHG und dessen Ergänzungen durch Landesrecht beitragen.

Die Festsetzung des Streitwerts beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG.