Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
3 B 7/20, 3 B 7/20 (3 C 6/21) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2021:290621B3B7.20.0 AI generated

Temporal basis for lawfulness of administrative orders repeating Animal Welfare-Useful Animal Keeping Regulation requirements

Case Number 3 B 7/20, 3 B 7/20 (3 C 6/21)
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 quashed the lower court's refusal to allow an appeal and permitted the plaintiff's revision, with the cost burden to be determined in the main proceedings. The dispute involves a challenge to an administrative order issued under the Animal Welfare Law regarding specific requirements for keeping farm animals, as stipulated in the Animal Welfare-Useful Animal Keeping Regulation. The decisive legal basis for this procedural ruling is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, as the court determined that the revision was necessary to clarify which point in time is decisive for assessing the lawfulness of such an order when it repeats requirements already regulated in existing legislation.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG; Temporal basis for lawfulness of administrative orders repeating Animal Welfare-Useful Animal Keeping Regulation requirements: The dispute involves a challenge to an administrative order issued under the Animal Welfare Law regarding specific requirements for keeping farm animals, as stipulated in the Animal Welfare-Useful Animal Keeping Regulation. The decisive legal basis for this procedural ruling is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, as the court determined that the revision was necessary to clarify which point in time is decisive for assessing the lawfulness of such an order when it repeats requirements already regulated in existing legislation.

Keywords

AI generated
procedural orders official controls, veterinary checks veterinary legislation revision proceedings administrative costs hunting regulations

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Legal basis for the admission of the revision, cited in the reasoning associated with the dispositive order to allow the appeal.
§ 63 Abs. 1 GKG
Die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 2 und § 63 Abs. 1 GKG.
AI generated
3 B 8/20, 3 B 8/20 (3 C 7/21)
Timing of lawfulness for animal welfare orders reiterating livestock housing requirements under the Animal Protection Act
3 B 34/16
Scope of "repeated violation" in animal welfare bans and requirements for comprehensive care prohibitions under § 16a TierSchG
3 B 39/16, 3 B 39/16 (3 C 29/16)
Permissibility of culling chicks under German Animal Welfare Act: defining "reasonable ground" and the weight of economic interests
7 C 5/11
Sale of animals without prior administrative act under Animal Protection Act: scope of § 16a TierSchG and limits of immediate execution
3 B 20/15, 3 B 20/15 (3 C 1/16)
Compatibility of Mink Farming Regulations with Legislative Reservation When Commercial Viability Is Undermined

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Legal basis for the admission of the revision, cited in the reasoning associated with the dispositive order to allow the appeal.

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; Tierschutz

[TENOR]

Die Entscheidung des Niedersächsischen Oberverwaltungsgerichts über die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Beschluss vom 29. November 2019 wird aufgehoben.

Die Revision wird zugelassen.

Die Entscheidung über die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens folgt der Kostenentscheidung in der Hauptsache.

Der Wert des Streitgegenstandes wird für das Revisionsverfahren vorläufig auf 5 000 € festgesetzt.

[GRUENDE]

Die zulässige Beschwerde der Klägerin ist begründet. Die Revision ist gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO zuzulassen. Das Revisionsverfahren wird dem Bundesverwaltungsgericht voraussichtlich Gelegenheit zur Klärung der Frage geben, welcher Zeitpunkt für die Rechtmäßigkeit einer auf § 16a Abs. 1 Satz 1 und Satz 2 Nr. 1 i.V.m. § 2 Nr. 1 TierSchG gestützten Anordnung maßgebend ist, die den Inhalt bestimmter in der Tierschutz-Nutztierhaltungsverordnung geregelter Anforderungen wiederholt.

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