Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
3 B 20/15, 3 B 20/15 (3 C 1/16) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2016:080116B3B20.15.0 Généré par l'IA

Compatibility of Mink Farming Regulations with Legislative Reservation When Commercial Viability Is Undermined

Numéro de cause 3 B 20/15, 3 B 20/15 (3 C 1/16)
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Allemagne (DE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Admis (Allowed)
Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The Federal Administrative Court admitted the appeal on points of law, ruling in favor of the applicant by granting leave to appeal, while finding that the asserted divergence under § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO did not exist but the case possessed fundamental importance under § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO. The dispute concerns a commercial mink farming operation and the compatibility of a regulation enacted under § 2a Animal Welfare Act with the constitutional principle of legislative reservation, specifically whether stricter requirements for animal movement and housing under § 2 No. 1 and 2 Animal Welfare Act are permissible when they render mink farming economically unviable under current market conditions. The court ordered the proceedings to proceed to the Revisionsverfahren to resolve whether such a regulatory framework violates the legislative reservation principle, and provisionally set the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings based on §§ 47, 52, and 63 GKG.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO, § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG; Compatibility of Mink Farming Regulations with Legislative Reservation When Commercial Viability Is Undermined: 2 Nr. 2 VwGO did not exist but the case possessed fundamental importance under § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO. The dispute concerns a commercial mink farming operation and the compatibility of a regulation enacted under § 2a Animal Welfare Act with the constitutional principle of legislative reservation, specifically whether stricter requirements for animal movement and housing under § 2 No. 1 and 2 Animal Welfare Act are permissible when they render mink farming economically unviable under current market conditions. The court ordered the proceedings to proceed to the Revisionsverfahren to resolve whether such a regulatory framework violates the legislative reservation principle, and provisionally set the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings based on §§ 47, 52, and 63 GKG.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
acte législatif différend commercial droit du logement droit agricole exigence constitutionnelle procédure de révision

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO
Zwar liegt die geltend gemachte Divergenz im Sinne von § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO nicht vor.
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for admitting the appeal on points of law due to the fundamental importance of the case.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
1, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.
§ 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Provisions applied to determine the provisional amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.
Généré par l'IA
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 7/20, 3 B 7/20 (3 C 6/21)
Temporal basis for lawfulness of administrative orders repeating Animal Welfare-Useful Animal Keeping Regulation requirements
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
3 B 62/09
Validity of state-law fee approval for compulsory animal by-product disposal and its conflict with federal legislative competence over civil law
3 B 37/17
Constitutionality of permanent grassland conversion ban and proportionality limits on legislative environmental protection discretion

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Main ground for admitting the appeal on points of law due to the fundamental importance of the case.

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

Provisions applied to determine the provisional amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

Revisionszulassung; Vereinbarkeit von § 2 Nr. 1 und 2 TierSchG bei gewerblicher Haltung von Nerzen

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde hat Erfolg. Zwar liegt die geltend gemachte Divergenz im Sinne von § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO nicht vor. Der Rechtssache kommt jedoch grundsätzliche Bedeutung zu, § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO. Im Revisionsverfahren wird voraussichtlich die Frage zu klären sein, ob eine Verordnungsregelung auf der Grundlage von § 2a TierSchG zur näheren Bestimmung von Anforderungen hinsichtlich der Bewegungsmöglichkeit und Unterbringung von Tieren nach § 2 Nr. 1 und 2 TierSchG auch dann mit dem Parlamentsvorbehalt vereinbar ist, wenn sie die gewerbliche Haltung von Nerzen unter den gegebenen Marktbedingungen ökonomisch untragbar macht.

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