Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
5 B 2/20, 5 B 2/20 (5 C 5/20) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2020:080420B5B2.20.0 Généré par l'IA

Relationship between authorization bases in § 16(3) and (4) sentence 1 AFBG and its impact on information duties

Numéro de cause 5 B 2/20, 5 B 2/20 (5 C 5/20)
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 (BVerwG) overturned the OVG for North Rhine-Westphalia's decision to deny leave to appeal and ordered the admission of the revision proceedings. The dispute concerns the interpretation of the Federal Nursing Home Act (AFBG), specifically regarding the statutory powers for facility approvals and the associated information duties. The decisive legal basis is § 132(2) No. 1 VwGO, which grants leave to appeal due to the fundamental significance of clarifying the relationship between the authorization grounds in § 16(3) and § 16(4) sentence 1 AFBG and the potential impact on the application of the information duty under § 16(4) sentence 2 AFBG.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; Relationship between authorization bases in § 16(3) and (4) sentence 1 AFBG and its impact on information duties: The dispute concerns the interpretation of the Federal Nursing Home Act (AFBG), specifically regarding the statutory powers for facility approvals and the associated information duties. The decisive legal basis is § 132(2) No. 1 VwGO, which grants leave to appeal due to the fundamental significance of clarifying the relationship between the authorization grounds in § 16(3) and § 16(4) sentence 1 AFBG and the potential impact on the application of the information duty under § 16(4) sentence 2 AFBG.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
base légale motifs de révision accès aux documents officiels autorité administrative travaux soumis à autorisation pouvoir de décision

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for the verdict, cited in the dispositive order to justify the admission of the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal issue.
Généré par l'IA
6 B 28/22
Insufficiency of reasoning for refusing BVerfSchG information request due to risk of source endangerment and operational exposure.
7 B 20/14, 7 B 20/14 (7 C 2/15)
Admissibility of revision on the exclusion grounds and scope of application of the Freedom of Information Act (IFG)
6 B 18/13, 6 B 18/13 (6 C 28/13)
Scope of authorization for issuing access restriction orders under Art. 297 Abs. 1 EGStGB
20 F 8/12
Freedom of Information Act access to collegiate body minutes: decision-relevance prerequisite for intermediate proceedings on evidentiary access.
7 B 6/17, 7 B 6/17 (7 C 29/17)
Scope of exclusion grounds and requirement of a final administrative act for free access to information under VIG

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

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

Main ground for the verdict, cited in the dispositive order to justify the admission of the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal issue.

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; Verhältnis der Ermächtigungsgrundlagen des § 16 Abs. 3 und 4 Satz 1 AFBG zueinander

[TENOR]

Die Entscheidung des Oberverwaltungsgerichts für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen über die Nichtzulassung der Revision gegen sein Urteil vom 6. November 2019 wird aufgehoben.

Die Revision wird zugelassen.

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

[GRUENDE]

Die Revision gegen das Urteil des Oberverwaltungsgerichts für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen vom 6. November 2019 ist nach § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache zuzulassen.

Die Revision kann dem Senat Gelegenheit zur Klärung der Frage geben, in welchem Verhältnis die Ermächtigungsgrundlagen des § 16 Abs. 3 und 4 Satz 1 AFBG zueinander stehen und wie sich dies gegebenenfalls auf die Anwendung der Hinweispflicht des § 16 Abs. 4 Satz 2 AFBG auswirkt.