Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
3 B 11/24, 3 B 11/24 (3 C 3/25) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2025:240425B3B11.24.0 AI generated

Whether failure to create cross-compliance records constitutes prevention of on-the-spot control under Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013

Case Number 3 B 11/24, 3 B 11/24 (3 C 3/25)
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 of Germany quashed the Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeal’s refusal to grant leave to appeal and admitted the revision, with the final merits decision deferred to a later proceeding, as the plaintiff’s complaint against the non-admission was successful. The dispute concerns agricultural cross-compliance obligations, specifically whether the failure to create required records under the Fertilizer Ordinance constitutes the prevention of an on-the-spot control. The admission of the revision is grounded in the fundamental significance of the legal question, necessitating a clarification of whether and under what conditions the omission of such records violates Article 59(7) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, which defines the prevention of on-the-spot controls, in conjunction with the record-keeping duties under Article 93(1)(a) of the same regulation.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; Whether failure to create cross-compliance records constitutes prevention of on-the-spot control under Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013: The dispute concerns agricultural cross-compliance obligations, specifically whether the failure to create required records under the Fertilizer Ordinance constitutes the prevention of an on-the-spot control. The admission of the revision is grounded in the fundamental significance of the legal question, necessitating a clarification of whether and under what conditions the omission of such records violates Article 59(7) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, which defines the prevention of on-the-spot controls, in conjunction with the record-keeping duties under Article 93(1)(a) of the same regulation.

Keywords

AI generated
agricultural law control regulation administrative compliance law of obligations grounds for revision non-administrative dispute

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Basis for admitting the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question.
AI generated
3 C 25/12
EU agricultural aid denial: validity of cross-compliance reference to national law and effect of obstructing on-site controls
3 B 81/11
Milk reference quantities and individual contribution: good faith and obviousness of error under Art. 19 Reg. (EC) No 796/2004
3 B 24/16
Representative status for on-site agricultural inspections: scope of valid authorization and limits of statutory definition under EU regulation
3 C 18/22
Proof of plowing under permanent grassland rules: exclusionary deadline and proportionality of evidentiary standards
6 B 10/22
Identity checks in border areas: conformity with EU law and sufficiency of situational reports to distinguish from systematic border controls

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.

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; unterlassene Erstellung einer Eigendokumentation im Rahmen der Cross-Compliance als Verhinderung einer Vor-Ort-Kontrolle

[TENOR]

Die Entscheidung des Bayerischen Verwaltungsgerichtshofs über die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Beschluss vom 1. Februar 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 Revisionsverfahren vorläufig auf 14 836,21 € festgesetzt.

[GRUENDE]

Die zulässige Beschwerde des Klägers ist begründet. Die Revision ist gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache zuzulassen. Sie wird voraussichtlich zur Klärung der Frage beitragen, ob und gegebenenfalls unter welchen Voraussetzungen das Nichterstellen von Aufzeichnungen nach der Düngeverordnung zu denen der Betriebsinhaber im Rahmen der Cross-Compliance gemäß Art. 93 Abs. 1 Buchst. a VO (EU) Nr. 1306/2013 verpflichtet ist, eine Verhinderung einer Vor-Ort-Kontrolle im Sinne des Art. 59 Abs. 7 VO (EU) Nr. 1306/2013 ist.