Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
9 B 98/09, 9 B 98/09 (9 C 6/10) AI generated

Proportionality of cost-allocation clauses in public-law development contracts under § 124 Abs. 3 BauGB

Case Number 9 B 98/09, 9 B 98/09 (9 C 6/10)
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 (BVerwG) admitted the plaintiff's appeal for revision, finding the lower court's decision to be of fundamental legal significance and thereby allowing the plaintiff to challenge the validity of specific contract terms in the Federal Court. The dispute concerns the proportionality and adequacy of counterperformance in a public-law infrastructure development contract (Erschließungsvertrag), specifically whether a clause requiring the developer to bear cost shares that would otherwise be exclusively chargeable to third-party or foreign property owners renders the contractual arrangement inherently disproportionate under public law. The decisive legal issue is the interpretation of § 56 Abs. 1 Satz 2 VwVfG (equivalent to § 123 Abs. 1 Satz 2 LVwG SH) and § 124 Abs. 3 BauGB, determining if such cost-allocation provisions always constitute an undue imbalance prohibited by these norms.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 124 Abs. 3 BauGB; Proportionality of cost-allocation clauses in public-law development contracts under § 124 Abs. 3 BauGB: The dispute concerns the proportionality and adequacy of counterperformance in a public-law infrastructure development contract (Erschließungsvertrag), specifically whether a clause requiring the developer to bear cost shares that would otherwise be exclusively chargeable to third-party or foreign property owners renders the contractual arrangement inherently disproportionate under public law. The decisive legal issue is the interpretation of § 56 Abs. 1 Satz 2 VwVfG (equivalent to § 123 Abs. 1 Satz 2 LVwG SH) and § 124 Abs. 3 BauGB, determining if such cost-allocation provisions always constitute an undue imbalance prohibited by these norms.

Keywords

AI generated
allocation of costs proportionality contract interpretation allocation clause development costs property development

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Procedural basis explicitly cited in the dispositive to admit the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question.
§ 124 Abs. 3 BauGB
§ 124 Abs. 3 BauGB führt.
AI generated
9 C 6/10
Validity of development contract imposing third-party costs on developer under § 124 BauGB
9 B 6/11
Scope of development contracts under § 124 BauGB and the admissibility of levying development charges for excluded land acquisition costs
1 BvR 3533/13
Arbitrary interpretation of contractual development cost allocation clause in land purchase agreement
4 C 11/10
Validity of urban development contracts for financing indivisible infrastructure costs as prerequisites or consequences of new development projects
9 B 6/18
Allocation of development costs in a municipal statute: whether partial building-height restrictions on a parcel adjust the chargeable area under the equivalence principle

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Procedural basis explicitly cited in the dispositive to admit 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

Öffentlich-rechtlicher Vertrag; Austauschvertrag; Angemessenheit der Gegenleistung

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde der Klägerin ist zulässig und begründet. Die Revision ist gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache zuzulassen. Sie kann dem Bundesverwaltungsgericht Gelegenheit zur Klärung der Frage geben, ob die Bestimmung in einem Erschließungsvertrag, nach der der Erschließungsunternehmer auch die Aufwandsanteile zu tragen hat, die im Falle einer Beitragsveranlagung nicht ihm, sondern allein Dritt- bzw. Fremdanliegern auferlegt werden könnten, stets zur Unangemessenheit der vertraglichen Regelung i.S.v. § 56 Abs. 1 Satz 2 VwVfG (= § 123 Abs. 1 Satz 2 LVwG SH) bzw. § 124 Abs. 3 BauGB führt.