Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
3 B 36/10, 3 B 36/10 (3 C 38/10) AI generated

Whether the four-year exclusion period for reclaiming load equalization payments can be extended beyond ten years by interruptions

Case Number 3 B 36/10, 3 B 36/10 (3 C 38/10)
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 granted permission for appeal to the plaintiff, finding that the appeal against the lower court’s judgment was admissible. The case concerns a dispute over the clawback of financial equalization payments and specifically challenges whether the four-year exclusion period for claims under the Load Equalization Act can be extended beyond a ten-year limit through interruptions. The court held that the matter possesses fundamental legal significance, necessitating a definitive clarification on the interpretation of § 349 Abs. 5 Satz 4 Halbs. 1 and 2 LAG, and ordered the proceedings to continue in revision to resolve this open question following its 2008 precedent.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 3 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG; Whether the four-year exclusion period for reclaiming load equalization payments can be extended beyond ten years by interruptions: The case concerns a dispute over the clawback of financial equalization payments and specifically challenges whether the four-year exclusion period for claims under the Load Equalization Act can be extended beyond a ten-year limit through interruptions. The court held that the matter possesses fundamental legal significance, necessitating a definitive clarification on the interpretation of § 349 Abs. 5 Satz 4 Halbs. 1 and 2 LAG, and ordered the proceedings to continue in revision to resolve this open question following its 2008 precedent.

Keywords

AI generated
interruption of limitation period matter in dispute exclusion order interpretation of a judgment review period duration of the infringement

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for granting the appeal and admitting the revision based on fundamental significance.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
3 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.
§ 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 3 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Provisions applied for the determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.
AI generated
8 B 43/19
Burden Equalization Recovery: Adequacy of Counter-Performance and Exclusion Period under § 349 LAG
8 B 44/19
Repayment under Load Equalization Act: admissibility of revision for alleged divergence on counter-performance adequacy and calculation
3 B 27/10
Reclamation of Lastenausgleich: Limitation period start upon statutory lifting of state administration and agency knowledge of damages compensation
VIII ZR 279/11
Validity of immediate termination for disputed payment and statute of limitations for restitution of overcharged utilities
3 C 39/10
Recovery of Labor Balance Payments: Ten-Year Absolute Limit on Reclaiming Damages Compensation Despite Repeated Interruptions

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Main ground for granting the appeal and admitting the revision based on fundamental significance.

§ 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 3 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Provisions applied for the determination of the amount in dispute for the 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

Rückforderung von Lastenausgleichsleistungen; Verlängerung der Ausschlussfrist; Revisionszulassung

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde ist begründet. Die Rechtssache hat grundsätzliche Bedeutung im Sinne von § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO. Das Revisionsverfahren kann dem Senat voraussichtlich Gelegenheit geben, im Anschluss an sein Urteil vom 30. April 2008 - BVerwG 3 C 17.07 - (Buchholz 427.3 § 349 LAG Nr. 15) abschließend zu klären, ob die vierjährige Frist nach § 349 Abs. 5 Satz 4 Halbs. 1 LAG durch Unterbrechungen über die in Halbs. 2 der Vorschrift genannten zehn Jahre hinaus erstreckt werden kann.

Die Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 3 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.