Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
4 BN 2/16, 4 BN 2/16 (4 CN 2/17) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2017:250117B4BN2.16.0 Généré par l'IA

Insufficiency of preliminary cost overview to establish financial viability for urban redevelopment resolution under § 149 BauGB

Numéro de cause 4 BN 2/16, 4 BN 2/16 (4 CN 2/17)
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 ordered the admission of the appeal, granting the complaining party's request to proceed to a full review of the urban development regulation. The dispute concerns a complaint against a lower court's refusal to admit an appeal on grounds of fundamental significance regarding a contested urban redevelopment (sanation) resolution. The case hinges on whether a preliminary cost and financing overview is legally sufficient under the German Federal Building Code to establish that the redevelopment objective is financially viable, a question the court deemed to have fundamental importance for legal clarification. The decision is based on the procedural norms of the Administrative Court Rules (§§ 132, 133 VwGO) and substantive building law principles concerning the financial feasibility requirement for urban development resolutions (§ 149 BauGB, §§ 136, 142 BauGB), with the court's preliminary assessment that the specific legal question requires resolution by the higher instance.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 149 BauGB, § 133 Abs. 1 VwGO, § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 132 Abs. 1, § 133 Abs. 1 VwGO, § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG; Insufficiency of preliminary cost overview to establish financial viability for urban redevelopment resolution under § 149 BauGB: The dispute concerns a complaint against a lower court's refusal to admit an appeal on grounds of fundamental significance regarding a contested urban redevelopment (sanation) resolution. The case hinges on whether a preliminary cost and financing overview is legally sufficient under the German Federal Building Code to establish that the redevelopment objective is financially viable, a question the court deemed to have fundamental importance for legal clarification. The decision is based on the procedural norms of the Administrative Court Rules (§§ 132, 133 VwGO) and substantive building law principles concerning the financial feasibility requirement for urban development resolutions (§ 149 BauGB, §§ 136, 142 BauGB), with the court's preliminary assessment that the specific legal question requires resolution by the higher instance.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
décision préjudicielle développement urbain fixation des frais règlement du litige principal plan de financement plan de construction

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 149 BauGB
Revisionszulassung; Finanzierbarkeit eines Sanierungsziels (§ 149 BauGB)
§ 133 Abs. 1 VwGO
1, § 133 Abs. 1 VwGO zulässige Beschwerde ist begründet.
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
The main ground justifying the admission of the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal issue regarding financing overviews in urban development plans.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.
§ 132 Abs. 1, § 133 Abs. 1 VwGO
Procedural rules cited to establish the admissibility and legitimacy of the complaint against the non-admission of the revision.
§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Provisions cited as the basis for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for cost purposes in the revision proceedings.
Généré par l'IA
4 BN 4/16, 4 BN 4/16 (4 CN 4/17)
Financing overview relevance for achievement of redevelopment goals under § 149 BauGB
4 BN 5/16, 4 BN 5/16 (4 CN 5/17)
Land-law relevance of cost and financing overviews for financial feasibility of redevelopment targets
4 CN 2/17, 4 CN 3/17, 4 CN 4/17, 4 CN 5/17
Sanierungssatzung: Zwingende Kosten- und Finanzierungsübersicht nach § 149 BauGB vs. ausreichend grobe Prognose der Finanzierbarkeit
4 BN 3/16, 4 BN 3/16 (4 CN 3/17)
Revisionszulassung: Bodenrechtliche Relevanz der Kosten- und Finanzierungsübersicht bei der Sanierungsbeschlussfassung
4 B 11/10
Revisionszulassung: Wertermittlungsstichtag und Berechnungsmethode bei Sanierungsausgleich nach § 154 BauGB

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

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

The main ground justifying the admission of the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal issue regarding financing overviews in urban development plans.

§ 132 Abs. 1, § 133 Abs. 1 VwGO

Procedural rules cited to establish the admissibility and legitimacy of the complaint against the non-admission of the revision.

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

Provisions cited as the basis for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for cost purposes in 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; Finanzierbarkeit eines Sanierungsziels (§ 149 BauGB)

[GRUENDE]

Die gemäß § 132 Abs. 1, § 133 Abs. 1 VwGO zulässige Beschwerde ist begründet. Die Revision ist wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache nach § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO zuzulassen. Das Revisionsverfahren kann insbesondere zur Klärung der Frage beitragen, welche bodenrechtliche Relevanz einer Kosten- und Finanzierungsübersicht im Sinne von § 149 BauGB bei der Beschlussfassung über eine Sanierungssatzung (§§ 136, 142 BauGB) hinsichtlich der Frage der Finanzierbarkeit des Sanierungsziels zukommt.

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