Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
3 B 11/24, 3 B 11/24 (3 C 3/25) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2025:240425B3B11.24.0 Generato dall'IA

Whether failure to create cross-compliance records constitutes prevention of on-the-spot control under Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013

Numero d'incarto 3 B 11/24, 3 B 11/24 (3 C 3/25)
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 quashed the Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeal’s refusal to grant leave to appeal and admitted the revision, with the final merits decision deferred to a later proceeding, as the plaintiff’s complaint against the non-admission was successful. The dispute concerns agricultural cross-compliance obligations, specifically whether the failure to create required records under the Fertilizer Ordinance constitutes the prevention of an on-the-spot control. The admission of the revision is grounded in the fundamental significance of the legal question, necessitating a clarification of whether and under what conditions the omission of such records violates Article 59(7) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, which defines the prevention of on-the-spot controls, in conjunction with the record-keeping duties under Article 93(1)(a) of the same regulation.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; Whether failure to create cross-compliance records constitutes prevention of on-the-spot control under Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013: The dispute concerns agricultural cross-compliance obligations, specifically whether the failure to create required records under the Fertilizer Ordinance constitutes the prevention of an on-the-spot control. The admission of the revision is grounded in the fundamental significance of the legal question, necessitating a clarification of whether and under what conditions the omission of such records violates Article 59(7) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, which defines the prevention of on-the-spot controls, in conjunction with the record-keeping duties under Article 93(1)(a) of the same regulation.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
diritto agrario prescrizione di controllo conformità amministrativa diritto delle obbligazioni motivi di revisione vertenza non amministrativa

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Basis for admitting the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question.
Generato dall'IA
3 C 25/12
EU agricultural aid denial: validity of cross-compliance reference to national law and effect of obstructing on-site controls
3 B 81/11
Milk reference quantities and individual contribution: good faith and obviousness of error under Art. 19 Reg. (EC) No 796/2004
3 B 24/16
Representative status for on-site agricultural inspections: scope of valid authorization and limits of statutory definition under EU regulation
3 C 18/22
Proof of plowing under permanent grassland rules: exclusionary deadline and proportionality of evidentiary standards
6 B 10/22
Identity checks in border areas: conformity with EU law and sufficiency of situational reports to distinguish from systematic border controls

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Basis for admitting the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question.

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; unterlassene Erstellung einer Eigendokumentation im Rahmen der Cross-Compliance als Verhinderung einer Vor-Ort-Kontrolle

[TENOR]

Die Entscheidung des Bayerischen Verwaltungsgerichtshofs über die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Beschluss vom 1. Februar 2024 wird aufgehoben. Die Revision wird zugelassen.

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

Der Wert des Streitgegenstandes wird für das Revisionsverfahren vorläufig auf 14 836,21 € festgesetzt.

[GRUENDE]

Die zulässige Beschwerde des Klägers ist begründet. Die Revision ist gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache zuzulassen. Sie wird voraussichtlich zur Klärung der Frage beitragen, ob und gegebenenfalls unter welchen Voraussetzungen das Nichterstellen von Aufzeichnungen nach der Düngeverordnung zu denen der Betriebsinhaber im Rahmen der Cross-Compliance gemäß Art. 93 Abs. 1 Buchst. a VO (EU) Nr. 1306/2013 verpflichtet ist, eine Verhinderung einer Vor-Ort-Kontrolle im Sinne des Art. 59 Abs. 7 VO (EU) Nr. 1306/2013 ist.