Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
4 BN 6/20, 4 BN 6/20 (4 CN 2/20) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2020:031120B4BN6.20.0 AI generated

Admission of revision to clarify application of 18th BImSchV in replanning mixed-use areas

Case Number 4 BN 6/20, 4 BN 6/20 (4 CN 2/20)
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 ordered that the non-admission of revision by the higher regional administrative court be set aside and the appeal be admitted, with the final cost determination reserved for the merits decision. The dispute concerns the procedural application of the 18th German Immission Control Ordinance (18. BImSchV) specifically regarding the replanning of mixed-use areas, where the respondent successfully challenged the lower court’s refusal to hear the appeal. The decisive legal basis for this outcome is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, which mandates the admission of revision due to the matter's fundamental significance for clarifying the modalities of applying the ordinance in such planning contexts.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG; Admission of revision to clarify application of 18th BImSchV in replanning mixed-use areas: The dispute concerns the procedural application of the 18th German Immission Control Ordinance (18. BImSchV) specifically regarding the replanning of mixed-use areas, where the respondent successfully challenged the lower court’s refusal to hear the appeal. The decisive legal basis for this outcome is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, which mandates the admission of revision due to the matter's fundamental significance for clarifying the modalities of applying the ordinance in such planning contexts.

Keywords

AI generated
application for revision revision of zoning plan non-administrative dispute planning costs procedural orders mixed-use zone

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Die Revision ist wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung im Sinne von § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO zuzulassen.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.
§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Provisions cited in the dispositive to determine the legal basis for the provisional assessment of the value in dispute for the revision proceedings.
AI generated
4 BN 7/20, 4 BN 7/20 (4 CN 3/20)
Admissibility of revision regarding application of 18. BImSchV in re-planning mixed-use residential areas
4 BN 9/23
Reinterpretation of invalid urban planning provisions based on immission protection requirements
4 BN 17/23, 4 BN 17/23 (4 CN 1/24)
Admissibility of Revision on Fundamental Significance for Retail Exclusion in Land-Use Planning under § 9 Abs. 2a BauGB
4 BN 49/22
Admissibility of revision regarding distinction between renewed and new change prohibition under BauGB § 17
4 B 18/20
Admissibility of revision: Reference objects for buildable floor area under § 34 BauGB and admissibility of adjacent planned zones

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Provisions cited in the dispositive to determine the legal basis for the provisional assessment of the value 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; Anwendung der 18. BImSchV bei der Überplanung einer Gemengelage

[TENOR]

Die Entscheidung über die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des Oberverwaltungsgerichts Berlin-Brandenburg vom 28. November 2019 wird aufgehoben. Die Revision wird zugelassen.

Die Kostenentscheidung bleibt der Endentscheidung vorbehalten.

Der Wert des Streitgegenstandes wird für das Revisionsverfahren vorläufig auf 10 000 € festgesetzt.

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde der Antragsgegnerin ist zulässig und begründet. Die Revision ist wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung im Sinne von § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO zuzulassen.

Das Revisionsverfahren kann voraussichtlich Gelegenheit geben, die Modalitäten der Anwendung der 18. BImSchV bei der Überplanung einer Gemengelage zu klären.

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