Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
8 B 55/16, 8 B 55/16 (8 C 11/17) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2017:070617B8B55.16.0 AI generated

Admission of revision on whether a corporate restitution application under the Property Act satisfies the limitation period for shareholder compensation claims under the Compensation Performance Act

Case Number 8 B 55/16, 8 B 55/16 (8 C 11/17)
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 (BVerwG) granted leave to appeal for the plaintiff, ruling that the plaintiff's objection was well-founded and ordering the admission of revision under § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO due to the fundamental significance of the legal question. The dispute concerns whether an application for restitution under the Property Act (VermG), filed by a limited liability company for assets while the Compensation Performance Act (AusglLeistG) was in effect, satisfies the statutory limitation period in § 6 Abs. 1 Satz 3 AusglLeistG for claims belonging to the company's shareholders. The decisive legal issue centers on the interplay between the limitation period in the Compensation Performance Act and the rights of individual shareholders when the corporate entity initiates the initial application, with the Court indicating that the revision proceedings will clarify this substantive qualification.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 2, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG; Admission of revision on whether a corporate restitution application under the Property Act satisfies the limitation period for shareholder compensation claims under the Compensation Performance Act: 2 Nr. 1 VwGO due to the fundamental significance of the legal question. The dispute concerns whether an application for restitution under the Property Act (VermG), filed by a limited liability company for assets while the Compensation Performance Act (AusglLeistG) was in effect, satisfies the statutory limitation period in § 6 Abs. 1 Satz 3 AusglLeistG for claims belonging to the company's shareholders. The decisive legal issue centers on the interplay between the limitation period in the Compensation Performance Act and the rights of individual shareholders when the corporate entity initiates the initial application, with the Court indicating that the revision proceedings will clarify this substantive qualification.

Keywords

AI generated
restitution of property limitation periods shareholder rights limited liability statutory right revision proceedings

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Ground for admitting the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
2, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.
§ 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 2, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Basis for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute in the revision proceedings.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
BVerwGE 130, 214
Februar 2008 - 5 C 16.07 - BVerwGE 130, 214 Rn.
AI generated
8 C 11/17
Eligibility of corporate property claims as restitution compensation applications under § 6 Abs. 1 Satz 2 AusglLeistG
V ZR 240/13
Limitation period for restitution substitute claims definitively established by final administrative act
8 B 105/09
Restitution eligibility for corporate shareholders under German asset restitution law
8 B 17/15
Eligibility for restitution of lost securities: timeliness of application and interpretation of pre-deadline administrative correspondence under German Restitution Law
IV ZR 147/15
Limitation period for mandatory inheritance claims against post-war restitution successor under Property Act

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

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

§ 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 2, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Basis for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute in 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; Wahrung der Ausschlussfrist

[GRUENDE]

Die zulässige Beschwerde der Klägerin ist begründet. Die Revision ist gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung zuzulassen. Das Revisionsverfahren bietet voraussichtlich Gelegenheit zu klären, ob ein bei Inkrafttreten des Ausgleichsleistungsgesetzes (AusglLeistG) noch anhängiger Antrag, den eine Kapitalgesellschaft (Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung) nach dem Vermögensgesetz für Vermögenswerte nach § 1 Abs. 8 Buchst. a VermG gestellt hat, die Ausschlussfrist des § 6 Abs. 1 Satz 3 AusglLeistG für das Begehren auf Ausgleichsleistungen auch der nach § 1 Abs. 1 und 2 AusglLeistG möglicherweise materiell anspruchsberechtigten Gesellschafter wahrt (zur Wahrung der Ausschlussfrist durch vermögensrechtliche Anträge von Personengesellschaften vgl. BVerwG, Urteil vom 14. Februar 2008 - 5 C 16.07 - BVerwGE 130, 214 Rn. 24 ff. und Leitsatz 2).

Die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 2, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.