Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
8 B 8/24, 8 B 8/24 (8 C 6/24) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2024:131124B8B8.24.0 AI generated

Spatial scope of § 1 Abs. 6 VermG and sufficiency of seat relocation for minority shareholder compensation nexus

Case Number 8 B 8/24, 8 B 8/24 (8 C 6/24)
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 set aside the lower court’s decision on non-admission and admitted the appeal on points of law, resulting in the prevailing party being the appellant who successfully challenged the initial refusal. The dispute concerns the spatial scope of Germany’s Compensation Act (VermG), specifically whether the required territorial nexus for compensation of minority shareholder damages (Sitzverlegung) is satisfied when an issuer moves its administrative seat from the reintegration zone to the scope of Allied restitution law, without necessarily relocating its statutory registered seat. The decisive legal basis is § 1 Abs. 6 VermG regarding the spatial applicability of compensation for Allied-era expropriations, and the case was admitted under § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO due to fundamental legal significance, with the value in dispute set at 500,000 EUR.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG; Spatial scope of § 1 Abs. 6 VermG and sufficiency of seat relocation for minority shareholder compensation nexus: The dispute concerns the spatial scope of Germany’s Compensation Act (VermG), specifically whether the required territorial nexus for compensation of minority shareholder damages (Sitzverlegung) is satisfied when an issuer moves its administrative seat from the reintegration zone to the scope of Allied restitution law, without necessarily relocating its statutory registered seat. The decisive legal basis is § 1 Abs. 6 VermG regarding the spatial applicability of compensation for Allied-era expropriations, and the case was admitted under § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO due to fundamental legal significance, with the value in dispute set at 500,000 EUR.

Keywords

AI generated
compensation for expropriation minority shareholder territorial scope value in dispute statutory basis territorial law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Basis for admitting the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question regarding the spatial scope of the Compensation Act.
§ 63 Abs. 1 GKG
Die Streitwertfestsetzung beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1 und 3 i. V. m. § 52 Abs. 1 und Abs. 4 Nr. 3, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG.
AI generated
8 C 2/18
Territorial scope of § 1 Abs. 6 VermG for assets transferred to Allied restitution jurisdiction before the Act's entry into force
8 B 47/13
Scope of spatial applicability of Vermögensgesetz to supplementary restitution of foreign-resident companies' assets in the accession territory
8 C 6.24
Location of Persecution-Forced Corporate Shares: Statutory Seat as Decisive Criterion for Asset Act Scope Versus Allied Restitution Jurisdiction
8 B 25/17, 8 B 25/17 (8 C 2/18)
Applicability of § 1 Abs. 6 VermG to Pre-1945 Losses in Former East Germany When Corporate Seat Moved West Before May 1945
8 B 84/11
Restitution of corporate assets under the Vermögensgesetz: Requirement for internal nexus in stretched injury and exclusion of assets from enterprise holdings prior to expropriation

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Basis for admitting the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question regarding the spatial scope of the Compensation Act.

§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3 i. V. m. § 52 Abs. 1 und Abs. 4 Nr. 3, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG

Legal basis for the determination of the value in dispute (Streitwert) for the complaint and 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; räumlicher Geltungsbereich des § 1 Abs. 6 VermG

[TENOR]

Die Entscheidung des Verwaltungsgerichts Berlin über die Nichtzulassung der Revision gegen sein Urteil vom 14. Dezember 2023, berichtigt durch Beschluss vom 25. Januar 2024, wird aufgehoben.

Die Revision wird zugelassen.

Die Entscheidung über die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens folgt der Kostenentscheidung in der Hauptsache.

Der Wert des Streitgegenstandes wird für das Beschwerdeverfahren und für das Revisionsverfahren - insoweit vorläufig - auf jeweils 500 000 € festgesetzt.

[GRUENDE]

Die zulässige Beschwerde ist begründet. Der Rechtssache kommt die geltend gemachte grundsätzliche Bedeutung zu (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO). Die Beschwerdebegründung führt auf die Frage, ob eine Beendigung des nach § 1 Abs. 6 VermG erforderlichen räumlichen Bezugs einer Anteilsschädigung zum Beitrittsgebiet durch Sitzverlegung des dort ansässigen Emittenten in den räumlichen Geltungsbereich des alliierten Rückerstattungsrechts eine Verlegung seines satzungsmäßigen Sitzes dorthin voraussetzt.

Die Streitwertfestsetzung beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1 und 3 i. V. m. § 52 Abs. 1 und Abs. 4 Nr. 3, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG.