Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
7 B 14/19, 7 B 14/19 (7 C 7/20) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2020:200720B7B14.19.0 Generato dall'IA

Whether recategorizing a bird species as value-determining for a protected area mandates a new notification procedure and updated Standard Data Form under the EU Birds Directive

Numero d'incarto 7 B 14/19, 7 B 14/19 (7 C 7/20)
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 of Germany (BVerwG) granted the plaintiff's complaint, reversing the lower court's decision to deny leave for revision, and ordered that the appeal be permitted, with the final cost determination reserved for the merits phase. The dispute concerned environmental administrative law, specifically whether the subsequent classification of a bird species as value-determining for a designated bird protection area necessitates a new notification procedure under the EU Birds Directive, including the completion of a Standard Data Form. The court based its decision on § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, finding that the case possessed fundamental legal significance as it could clarify the procedural obligations for updating protected area designations in response to new scientific or ecological assessments.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG; Whether recategorizing a bird species as value-determining for a protected area mandates a new notification procedure and updated Standard Data Form under the EU Birds Directive: The dispute concerned environmental administrative law, specifically whether the subsequent classification of a bird species as value-determining for a designated bird protection area necessitates a new notification procedure under the EU Birds Directive, including the completion of a Standard Data Form. The court based its decision on § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, finding that the case possessed fundamental legal significance as it could clarify the procedural obligations for updating protected area designations in response to new scientific or ecological assessments.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
notificazione della decisione direttiva norma ambientale revisione di una decisione considerazioni di protezione ambientale valore litigioso

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for the verdict, justifying the admission of the revision due to the fundamental legal significance of the case.
§ 63 Abs. 1 GKG
Die Festsetzung des Streitwerts beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG.
§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG
Provisions applied to determine the provisional value in dispute for the revision proceedings.
Generato dall'IA
7 C 7/20
Landfill expansion in factual EU bird reserve: strict protection under Article 4(4) Birds Directive and rebuttable presumption of complete determining species list in standard data sheet
9 B 14/13
Habitats Directive compatibility and right to be heard: substantive examination of species protection claims despite procedural prudence
7 B 10/21
Wind energy permit and bird protection: inclusion of "de facto" sites in Natura 2000 zones under Article 4 of the Birds Directive
4 CN 3/13
Invalidity of road development plan in factual bird reserve: non-retroactive effect of subsequent habitat designation under EU Birds Directive
4 B 49/18
Habitat protection standing: Admissibility of revision blocked by lack of factual findings on violation of EU and national species protection laws

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Main ground for the verdict, justifying the admission of the revision due to the fundamental legal significance of the case.

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

Provisions applied to determine the provisional value 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; Erforderlichkeit eines erneuten Meldeverfahrens

[TENOR]

Die Entscheidung des Niedersächsischen Oberverwaltungsgerichts über die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil vom 23. Mai 2019 wird aufgehoben.

Die Revision wird zugelassen.

Die Kostenentscheidung bleibt der Endentscheidung vorbehalten.

Der Wert des Streitgegenstandes wird für das Revisionsverfahren vorläufig auf 112 500 € festgesetzt.

[GRUENDE]

Die zulässige Beschwerde der Klägerin ist begründet. Die Revision ist wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache zuzulassen (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO). Das Revisionsverfahren kann voraussichtlich zur Klärung der Frage, ob die nachträgliche Einstufung einer Vogelart als wertbestimmend für ein bestimmtes Vogelschutzgebiet ein erneutes Meldeverfahren nach der Vogelschutzrichtlinie mit einer Ergänzung des Standarddatenbogens erforderlich macht, beitragen.

Die Festsetzung des Streitwerts beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG.