Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
7 B 44/09, 7 B 44/09 (7 C 2/10) AI generated

Interplay between § 15(2) BImSchG exemption declarations and § 18(3) BImSchG time extension requirements for approved installations

Case Number 7 B 44/09, 7 B 44/09 (7 C 2/10)
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 allowed an appeal for revision and remanded the case, finding that the lower court's failure to address whether a declaration of exemption affects the requirement that a requested extension of time does not endanger the purpose of the law raises a question of fundamental importance. The dispute concerned a challenge to the denial of an extension of time for modifications to installation facilities subject to approval under the Federal Immission Control Act, specifically interrogating the legal interplay between a § 15(2) sentence 2 exemption declaration and the substantive prerequisites for a § 18(3) time extension. The decisive legal basis involves § 132(2) No. 1 VwGO regarding fundamental significance, with the core issue hinging on the binding effect of the exemption declaration and the interpretation of § 18(3) BImSchG in conjunction with § 15 BImSchG.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 und 3 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 GKG; Interplay between § 15(2) BImSchG exemption declarations and § 18(3) BImSchG time extension requirements for approved installations: The dispute concerned a challenge to the denial of an extension of time for modifications to installation facilities subject to approval under the Federal Immission Control Act, specifically interrogating the legal interplay between a § 15(2) sentence 2 exemption declaration and the substantive prerequisites for a § 18(3) time extension. The decisive legal basis involves § 132(2) No. 1 VwGO regarding fundamental significance, with the core issue hinging on the binding effect of the exemption declaration and the interpretation of § 18(3) BImSchG in conjunction with § 15 BImSchG.

Keywords

AI generated
approval procedure value in dispute substantive requirements extension of time limit modification of sentence block exemption regulations

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Basis for admitting the appeal for revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question regarding the interplay between exemption declarations and time extensions.
§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG
Provision applied to determine the value in dispute for the revision procedure.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Provision cited regarding the value in dispute for the revision procedure.
§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3 GKG
Basis for determining the value in dispute for the appeal procedure.
§ 47 Abs. 1 GKG
Basis for determining the value in dispute for the revision procedure.
AI generated
7 C 2/10
Scope of binding effect of a § 15 Abs. 2 Satz 2 BImSchG exemption declaration in extending permit deadlines under § 18 Abs. 3 BImSchG
7 B 38/09
Extension of grandfathered facility legal position under § 18 BImSchG
7 B 6/11, 7 B 6/11 (7 C 7/11)
Admissibility of appeal based on fundamental significance: whether an emission control exemption under § 15(2) Sentence 2 BImSchG can infringe third-party rights
7 C 9/19
Immissionsschutzrecht: Extent of review and error correction in extension decisions under § 18(3) BImSchG
7 B 4/24
Expiry of building permit integrated into emission protection permit and impact on deadline extension under § 18 BImSchG

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Basis for admitting the appeal for revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question regarding the interplay between exemption declarations and time extensions.

§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3 GKG

Basis for determining the value in dispute for the appeal procedure.

§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG

Provision applied to determine the value in dispute for the appeal procedure.

§ 47 Abs. 1 GKG

Basis for determining the value in dispute for the revision procedure.

§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG

Provision applied to determine the value in dispute for the revision procedure.

§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Provision cited regarding the value in dispute for the revision procedure.

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

Änderung genehmigungsbedürftiger Anlagen; Freistellungserklärung; Fristverlängerung

[GRUENDE]

Der von der Klägerin aufgeworfenen - und vom Berufungsgericht verneinten - Frage, ob eine Freistellungserklärung nach § 15 Abs. 2 Satz 2 BImSchG Bedeutung - und gegebenenfalls welche - für die im Rahmen des § 18 Abs. 3 BImSchG zu prüfende Voraussetzung hat, dass die beantragte Fristverlängerung den Zweck des Gesetzes nicht gefährdet, kommt grundsätzliche Bedeutung zu (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO). Ihre Beantwortung hängt u.a. davon ab, was bestandskräftiger Gegenstand der Freistellungserklärung ist und damit an deren (möglicher) Bindungswirkung teil hat.

Die Festsetzung des Streitwerts beruht für das Beschwerdeverfahren auf § 47 Abs. 1 und 3, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG, für das Revisionsverfahren auf § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.