Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
4 BN 17/23, 4 BN 17/23 (4 CN 1/24) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2024:250124B4BN17.23.0 AI generated

Admissibility of Revision on Fundamental Significance for Retail Exclusion in Land-Use Planning under § 9 Abs. 2a BauGB

Case Number 4 BN 17/23, 4 BN 17/23 (4 CN 1/24)
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 quashed the higher regional administrative court's decision not to admit the revision and granted the applicant leave to appeal, ordering that the legal dispute be re-tried on the merits with a provisional value in dispute of €50,000. The case concerned a challenge to a land-use plan based on § 9 Abs. 2a BauGB that excluded retail businesses, including those with non-center-relevant assortments, from specific zones. The decisive legal basis for the court's order is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, as the matter was determined to be of fundamental legal significance, requiring clarification on the requirements for planning necessity, defects in stipulations, and errors in the balancing of interests associated with such zoning exclusions.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG; Admissibility of Revision on Fundamental Significance for Retail Exclusion in Land-Use Planning under § 9 Abs. 2a BauGB: The case concerned a challenge to a land-use plan based on § 9 Abs. 2a BauGB that excluded retail businesses, including those with non-center-relevant assortments, from specific zones. The decisive legal basis for the court's order is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, as the matter was determined to be of fundamental legal significance, requiring clarification on the requirements for planning necessity, defects in stipulations, and errors in the balancing of interests associated with such zoning exclusions.

Keywords

AI generated
zoning exclusion revision of zoning plan challenge of administrative decisions regional land use plan matters excluded exclusion zone order

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for granting leave to appeal due to the fundamental legal significance of the issues regarding zoning exclusions under § 9 Abs. 2a BauGB.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.
§ 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Procedural basis for the provisional determination of the value in dispute for the appellate proceedings.
AI generated
4 BN 1/13
Validity of retail restriction plans under § 9 Abs. 2a BauGB and municipal planning authority over railway land
4 BN 8/13
Sufficiency of urban planning justification for total retail exclusion under § 9 Abs. 2a BauGB
4 CN 1/24
Sectoral development plan retail exclusion: necessity of concrete urban planning justification and requirement of existing facility types under § 9 Abs. 2a BauGB
4 B 6/24, 4 B 6/24 (4 C 2/24)
Residential use and exclusion of factual core zone status under § 34 BauGB
4 BN 35/11
§ 215 BauGB objection deadline: substantiation required for land-use plan defects not merely by filing a norm control application

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Main ground for granting leave to appeal due to the fundamental legal significance of the issues regarding zoning exclusions under § 9 Abs. 2a BauGB.

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

Procedural basis for the provisional determination of the value in dispute for the appellate 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; Ausschluss von Einzelhandel mit nicht zentrenrelevanten Sortimenten in Bebauungsplan nach § 9 Abs. 2a BauGB

[TENOR]

Auf die Beschwerde der Antragstellerin wird die Entscheidung des Schleswig-Holsteinischen Oberverwaltungsgerichts über die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil vom 2. März 2023 aufgehoben.

Die Revision wird zugelassen.

Die Kostenentscheidung bleibt der Schlussentscheidung vorbehalten.

Der Wert des Streitgegenstandes wird für das Revisionsverfahren vorläufig auf 50 000 € festgesetzt.

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde der Antragstellerin ist zulässig und begründet. Die Revision ist wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache nach § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO zuzulassen. Das Revisionsverfahren kann voraussichtlich zur Klärung der Frage beitragen, wie bei einem auf § 9 Abs. 2a BauGB gestützten Bebauungsplan, mit dem auch Einzelhandelsbetriebe mit nicht zentrenrelevanten Sortimenten ausgeschlossen werden, die Anforderungen an die Erforderlichkeit der Planung, Festsetzungsmängel und Fehler der Abwägung abzugrenzen sind.

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