Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
3 B 20/15, 3 B 20/15 (3 C 1/16) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2016:080116B3B20.15.0 AI generated

Compatibility of Mink Farming Regulations with Legislative Reservation When Commercial Viability Is Undermined

Case Number 3 B 20/15, 3 B 20/15 (3 C 1/16)
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Administrative Court admitted the appeal on points of law, ruling in favor of the applicant by granting leave to appeal, while finding that the asserted divergence under § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO did not exist but the case possessed fundamental importance under § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO. The dispute concerns a commercial mink farming operation and the compatibility of a regulation enacted under § 2a Animal Welfare Act with the constitutional principle of legislative reservation, specifically whether stricter requirements for animal movement and housing under § 2 No. 1 and 2 Animal Welfare Act are permissible when they render mink farming economically unviable under current market conditions. The court ordered the proceedings to proceed to the Revisionsverfahren to resolve whether such a regulatory framework violates the legislative reservation principle, and provisionally set the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings based on §§ 47, 52, and 63 GKG.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO, § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG; Compatibility of Mink Farming Regulations with Legislative Reservation When Commercial Viability Is Undermined: 2 Nr. 2 VwGO did not exist but the case possessed fundamental importance under § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO. The dispute concerns a commercial mink farming operation and the compatibility of a regulation enacted under § 2a Animal Welfare Act with the constitutional principle of legislative reservation, specifically whether stricter requirements for animal movement and housing under § 2 No. 1 and 2 Animal Welfare Act are permissible when they render mink farming economically unviable under current market conditions. The court ordered the proceedings to proceed to the Revisionsverfahren to resolve whether such a regulatory framework violates the legislative reservation principle, and provisionally set the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings based on §§ 47, 52, and 63 GKG.

Keywords

AI generated
legislative act commercial dispute housing law agricultural law constitutional requirement revision proceedings

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO
Zwar liegt die geltend gemachte Divergenz im Sinne von § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO nicht vor.
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for admitting the appeal on points of law due to the fundamental importance of the case.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
1, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.
§ 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Provisions applied to determine the provisional amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.
AI generated
3 B 8/20, 3 B 8/20 (3 C 7/21)
Timing of lawfulness for animal welfare orders reiterating livestock housing requirements under the Animal Protection Act
3 B 7/20, 3 B 7/20 (3 C 6/21)
Temporal basis for lawfulness of administrative orders repeating Animal Welfare-Useful Animal Keeping Regulation requirements
3 B 39/16, 3 B 39/16 (3 C 29/16)
Permissibility of culling chicks under German Animal Welfare Act: defining "reasonable ground" and the weight of economic interests
3 B 62/09
Validity of state-law fee approval for compulsory animal by-product disposal and its conflict with federal legislative competence over civil law
3 B 37/17
Constitutionality of permanent grassland conversion ban and proportionality limits on legislative environmental protection discretion

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Main ground for admitting the appeal on points of law due to the fundamental importance of the case.

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

Provisions applied to determine the provisional amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Revisionszulassung; Vereinbarkeit von § 2 Nr. 1 und 2 TierSchG bei gewerblicher Haltung von Nerzen

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde hat Erfolg. Zwar liegt die geltend gemachte Divergenz im Sinne von § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO nicht vor. Der Rechtssache kommt jedoch grundsätzliche Bedeutung zu, § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO. Im Revisionsverfahren wird voraussichtlich die Frage zu klären sein, ob eine Verordnungsregelung auf der Grundlage von § 2a TierSchG zur näheren Bestimmung von Anforderungen hinsichtlich der Bewegungsmöglichkeit und Unterbringung von Tieren nach § 2 Nr. 1 und 2 TierSchG auch dann mit dem Parlamentsvorbehalt vereinbar ist, wenn sie die gewerbliche Haltung von Nerzen unter den gegebenen Marktbedingungen ökonomisch untragbar macht.

Die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.