Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
9 BN 3/17, 9 BN 3/17 (9 CN 1/18) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2018:130918B9BN3.17.0 AI generated

Constitutional limits on cost coverage in fee collection

Case Number 9 BN 3/17, 9 BN 3/17 (9 CN 1/18)
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 granted leave to appeal, rejecting the applicant's non-acceptance complaint and ordering that the constitutional limits on cost coverage in connection with the levying of fees be reviewed by the revision instance. The dispute concerned the permissibility of charging fees that exceed the actual administrative costs incurred (cost coverage), with the applicant challenging the lawfulness of such an excess. The court authorized the revision based on § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, citing the fundamental significance of the question regarding whether cost coverage in fee collection infringes upon constitutional boundaries.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG; Constitutional limits on cost coverage in fee collection: The dispute concerned the permissibility of charging fees that exceed the actual administrative costs incurred (cost coverage), with the applicant challenging the lawfulness of such an excess. The court authorized the revision based on § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, citing the fundamental significance of the question regarding whether cost coverage in fee collection infringes upon constitutional boundaries.

Keywords

AI generated
constitutional limits administrative fee non-administrative dispute constitutional revision connection fee constitutional complaint abroad

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for granting leave to appeal the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question.
§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG
1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG.
§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG
Procedural basis for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.
AI generated
2 BvR 2226/20
Constitutional complaint: Admissibility of judicial subject value determination and reimbursement of expenses following non-acceptance
2 BvR 1216/21
Denial of constitutional complaint cost reimbursement where administrative remedy followed legislative amendment rather than recognition of constitutional right
2 BvR 586/19
Reimbursement of constitutional complaint expenses denied due to administrative modification based on changed circumstances and lack of exhaustion of legal remedies
1 BvR 1012/11
Refusal to allow appeal for divergent jurisprudence on recoverability of debt collection agency fees as default damages
1 BvR 160/15
Unreviewability of abuse fee imposition and non-acceptance rulings in constitutional complaint proceedings

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Main ground for granting leave to appeal the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question.

§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG

Procedural basis for the provisional determination of the 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; Verfassungsmäßigkeit der Kostenüberdeckung bei Gebührenerhebung

[GRUENDE]

Die Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde des Antragstellers ist begründet. Die Revision ist gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache zuzulassen. Sie kann zur Klärung der Frage beitragen, inwieweit eine Kostenüberdeckung im Zusammenhang mit der Gebührenerhebung an verfassungsrechtliche Grenzen stößt.

Die vorläufige Festsetzung des Streitwerts für das Revisionsverfahren folgt aus § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG.