Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
8 B 31.24, 8 B 31.24 (8 C 7.25) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2025:160725B8B31.24.0 AI generated

Whether a prison land transfer constitutes a destruction measure under VwRehaG

Case Number 8 B 31.24, 8 B 31.24 (8 C 7.25)
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 (BVerwG) granted a petition for leave to file an appeal, overturning the lower administrative court’s refusal and ordering the appeal to proceed, with the losing party to bear the costs and the amount in dispute set at €1,500 for both the appeal and review proceedings. The dispute concerns a challenge under the Federal Act on the Rehabilitation of Victims of National Socialist Persecution (VwRehaG), specifically whether the order to commute a prisoner to a different federal state (Land transfer) constitutes a "measure" implemented with the intent of "destruction" as required by the statute for compensation eligibility. The decisive legal basis is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, which permits appellate review for questions of fundamental legal significance, focusing on the interpretation of § 1a Abs. 2 Satz 1 Nr. 1 VwRehaG regarding the nexus between state measures and the victimization intent.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 und 3 i. V. m. § 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG; Whether a prison land transfer constitutes a destruction measure under VwRehaG: The dispute concerns a challenge under the Federal Act on the Rehabilitation of Victims of National Socialist Persecution (VwRehaG), specifically whether the order to commute a prisoner to a different federal state (Land transfer) constitutes a "measure" implemented with the intent of "destruction" as required by the statute for compensation eligibility. The decisive legal basis is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, which permits appellate review for questions of fundamental legal significance, focusing on the interpretation of § 1a Abs. 2 Satz 1 Nr. 1 VwRehaG regarding the nexus between state measures and the victimization intent.

Keywords

AI generated
transfer of prisoners right of removal persecution land law action for recovery of property demolition order

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Der Rechtssache kommt die geltend gemachte grundsätzliche Bedeutung zu (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO).
§ 63 Abs. 1 GKG
3 Satz 1, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG.
§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3 i. V. m. § 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG
Cited in the dispositive as the basis for the determination of the amount in dispute (Streitwert) for the appeal and review proceedings.
AI generated
8 B 63/20
Administrative rehabilitation of occupation-era land expropriations: exclusion under VwRehaG § 1(1) sent. 3 and equality limits for restituting movables but not immovables
3 B 66/11
Administrative rehabilitation vs. asset restitution: exclusion of VwRehaG claims when property transfer was a targeted asset acquisition rather than a byproduct of unconstitutional personal rights violations
8 B 31/13
Restitution of expropriated land and whether cumulative Nazi persecution measures constitute a de facto property loss under the Property Law
3 B 33/16
Eligibility of non-discriminatory DDR asset seizures for administrative rehabilitation under VwRehaG
3 B 4/13
Occupation-based expropriation and statutory exclusion of administrative rehabilitation under the VwRehaG

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3 i. V. m. § 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG

Cited in the dispositive as the basis for the determination of the amount in dispute (Streitwert) for the appeal and review 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; Anordnung einer Kreisverweisung als Maßnahme im Sinne des VwRehaG

[TENOR]

Die Entscheidung des Verwaltungsgerichts Halle über die Nichtzulassung der Revision gegen sein Urteil vom 10. Juli 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 1 500 € festgesetzt.

[GRUENDE]

Die zulässige Beschwerde ist begründet. Der Rechtssache kommt die geltend gemachte grundsätzliche Bedeutung zu (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO). Im Revisionsverfahren wird voraussichtlich die höchstrichterlich noch ungeklärte Rechtsfrage zu klären sein, ob die Anordnung einer Kreisverweisung eine Maßnahme darstellt, die mit dem Ziel der Zersetzung im Sinne des § 1a Abs. 2 Satz 1 Nr. 1 VwRehaG erfolgte.

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