Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
9 B 98/09, 9 B 98/09 (9 C 6/10) Generato dall'IA

Proportionality of cost-allocation clauses in public-law development contracts under § 124 Abs. 3 BauGB

Numero d'incarto 9 B 98/09, 9 B 98/09 (9 C 6/10)
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 (BVerwG) admitted the plaintiff's appeal for revision, finding the lower court's decision to be of fundamental legal significance and thereby allowing the plaintiff to challenge the validity of specific contract terms in the Federal Court. The dispute concerns the proportionality and adequacy of counterperformance in a public-law infrastructure development contract (Erschließungsvertrag), specifically whether a clause requiring the developer to bear cost shares that would otherwise be exclusively chargeable to third-party or foreign property owners renders the contractual arrangement inherently disproportionate under public law. The decisive legal issue is the interpretation of § 56 Abs. 1 Satz 2 VwVfG (equivalent to § 123 Abs. 1 Satz 2 LVwG SH) and § 124 Abs. 3 BauGB, determining if such cost-allocation provisions always constitute an undue imbalance prohibited by these norms.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 124 Abs. 3 BauGB; Proportionality of cost-allocation clauses in public-law development contracts under § 124 Abs. 3 BauGB: The dispute concerns the proportionality and adequacy of counterperformance in a public-law infrastructure development contract (Erschließungsvertrag), specifically whether a clause requiring the developer to bear cost shares that would otherwise be exclusively chargeable to third-party or foreign property owners renders the contractual arrangement inherently disproportionate under public law. The decisive legal issue is the interpretation of § 56 Abs. 1 Satz 2 VwVfG (equivalent to § 123 Abs. 1 Satz 2 LVwG SH) and § 124 Abs. 3 BauGB, determining if such cost-allocation provisions always constitute an undue imbalance prohibited by these norms.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
ripartizione delle spese proporzionalità interpretazione del contratto clausola di ripartizione spese di urbanizzazione incentivazione immobiliare

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Procedural basis explicitly cited in the dispositive to admit the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question.
§ 124 Abs. 3 BauGB
§ 124 Abs. 3 BauGB führt.
Generato dall'IA
9 C 6/10
Validity of development contract imposing third-party costs on developer under § 124 BauGB
9 B 6/11
Scope of development contracts under § 124 BauGB and the admissibility of levying development charges for excluded land acquisition costs
1 BvR 3533/13
Arbitrary interpretation of contractual development cost allocation clause in land purchase agreement
4 C 11/10
Validity of urban development contracts for financing indivisible infrastructure costs as prerequisites or consequences of new development projects
9 B 6/18
Allocation of development costs in a municipal statute: whether partial building-height restrictions on a parcel adjust the chargeable area under the equivalence principle

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Procedural basis explicitly cited in the dispositive to admit 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

Öffentlich-rechtlicher Vertrag; Austauschvertrag; Angemessenheit der Gegenleistung

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde der Klägerin ist zulässig und begründet. Die Revision ist gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache zuzulassen. Sie kann dem Bundesverwaltungsgericht Gelegenheit zur Klärung der Frage geben, ob die Bestimmung in einem Erschließungsvertrag, nach der der Erschließungsunternehmer auch die Aufwandsanteile zu tragen hat, die im Falle einer Beitragsveranlagung nicht ihm, sondern allein Dritt- bzw. Fremdanliegern auferlegt werden könnten, stets zur Unangemessenheit der vertraglichen Regelung i.S.v. § 56 Abs. 1 Satz 2 VwVfG (= § 123 Abs. 1 Satz 2 LVwG SH) bzw. § 124 Abs. 3 BauGB führt.