Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
7 B 15/16, 7 B 15/16 (7 C 27/17) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2017:310717B7B15.16.0 Generato dall'IA

Scope of environmental impact assessment: cumulative effects of unapproved projects and chronological ranking of applications

Numero d'incarto 7 B 15/16, 7 B 15/16 (7 C 27/17)
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Accolto (Allowed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Administrative Court ordered the admission of the plaintiff's appeal in legal revision, thereby rejecting the defendant's position and allowing the case to proceed to the Senate for substantive review. The dispute concerned an appeal against a decision refusing to admit revision, challenging the lower court's interpretation of environmental compatibility assessment requirements in project approval procedures. The decisive legal basis was § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO, under which the court found a divergence from established jurisprudence; specifically, the lower court incorrectly applied a rule-based ranking of cumulative environmental impacts based on the chronological order of filing eligible approval applications, whereas Federal Administrative Court precedent mandates that the compatibility assessment be extended to other projects only when their impacts are reliably foreseeable, which generally occurs only after the relevant approval decision has been granted.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 und Abs. 3, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG; Scope of environmental impact assessment: cumulative effects of unapproved projects and chronological ranking of applications: The dispute concerned an appeal against a decision refusing to admit revision, challenging the lower court's interpretation of environmental compatibility assessment requirements in project approval procedures. The decisive legal basis was § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO, under which the court found a divergence from established jurisprudence; specifically, the lower court incorrectly applied a rule-based ranking of cumulative environmental impacts based on the chronological order of filing eligible approval applications, whereas Federal Administrative Court precedent mandates that the compatibility assessment be extended to other projects only when their impacts are reliably foreseeable, which generally occurs only after the relevant approval decision has been granted.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
esame di impatto ambientale domanda di revisione potere di cognizione presupposti materiali modalità di valutazione conformità alle norme ambientali

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO
Main legal ground cited for admitting the revision due to the alleged divergence in legal interpretation.
§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG
3, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG, für das Revisionsverfahren auf § 47 Abs.
§ 63 Abs. 1 GKG
Die Festsetzung des Streitwerts beruht für das Beschwerdeverfahren auf § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 und Abs. 3, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG, für das Revisionsverfahren auf § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG.
§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 und Abs. 3, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG
Provisions cited for the determination of the amount in dispute (Streitwert) for the complaint proceedings.
§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG
Provisions cited for the determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerwGE 141, 171
November 2011 - 9 A 23.10 - BVerwGE 141, 171 Rn.
Generato dall'IA
7 B 10/17, 7 B 10/17 (7 C 4/18)
Species protection in site-specific preliminary review under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act
4 B 3.25
Revisibility of federal environmental impact assessment norms incorporated into state law via legislative mandate
7 B 13/17, 7 B 13/17 (7 C 7/18)
Scope of species protection considerations in site-specific environmental impact assessment pre-screening
4 BN 3/23, 4 BN 3/23 (4 CN 2/23)
Scope of mandatory impact assessment for projects listed in UVPG Annex 1 No. 18 via § 2 Abs. 6 Nr. 3 UVPG
4 B 38/12
Transition rule for Environmental Impact Assessment: triggering event for pre-2005 procedure start and automatic annulment of permits lacking EIA.

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO

Main legal ground cited for admitting the revision due to the alleged divergence in legal interpretation.

§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 und Abs. 3, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG

Provisions cited for the determination of the amount in dispute (Streitwert) for the complaint proceedings.

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

Provisions cited for the determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Revisionszulassung; Divergenz; Verträglichkeitsprüfung

[GRUENDE]

Die zulässige Beschwerde des Klägers ist begründet. Die Revision ist gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO jedenfalls wegen der gerügten Divergenz zuzulassen. Nach der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts ist die Verträglichkeitsprüfung auf andere Projekte zu erstrecken, wenn deren Auswirkungen und damit das Ausmaß der Summationswirkung verlässlich absehbar ist, was grundsätzlich erst dann der Fall ist, wenn die betreffende Zulassungsentscheidung erteilt ist (vgl. BVerwG, Urteile vom 21. Mai 2008 - 9 A 68.07 - Buchholz 406.400 § 34 BNatSchG 2002 Nr. 1 Rn. 21, vom 24.

November 2011 - 9 A 23.10 - BVerwGE 141, 171 Rn. 40, vom 15. Juli 2016 - 9 C 3.16 - NVwZ 2016, 1631 Rn. 56 und vom 9. Februar 2017 - 7 A 2.15 - juris Rn. 219; Beschlüsse vom 9. Dezember 2011 - 9 B 44.11 - Buchholz 406.400 § 34 BNatSchG 2002 Nr. 7 Rn. 3 und vom 28. November 2013 - 9 B 14.13 - UPR 2014, 141 Rn. 11). Davon ist das Oberverwaltungsgericht in dem angegriffenen Urteil abgewichen, indem es im Rahmen der Summationsbetrachtung regelhaft auf eine Rangfolge der Belastungsbeiträge entsprechend der zeitlichen Reihenfolge der Einreichung eines prüffähigen Genehmigungsantrags abstellt.

Die Festsetzung des Streitwerts beruht für das Beschwerdeverfahren auf § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 und Abs. 3, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG, für das Revisionsverfahren auf § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG.