Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
8 B 41/10, 8 B 41/10 (8 C 2/11) AI generated

De facto expropriation: Requirement of subjective elements in interfering conduct under property rights law

Case Number 8 B 41/10, 8 B 41/10 (8 C 2/11)
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 (8th Senate) granted permission to file a revision, ruling that the appellant’s complaint against the lower court’s refusal was well-founded. The dispute concerns a property rights claim, specifically a challenge based on a de facto expropriation, where the material facts relate to the interpretation of whether such a concept requires subjective elements of the interfering party. The decisive legal basis for the ruling is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, as the case was deemed to have fundamental significance, offering the opportunity to further refine the established case-law definition of "factual expropriation" within property law and determine the necessity of subjective intent.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 und 3 GKG, § 52 Abs. 1 und 4 GKG; De facto expropriation: Requirement of subjective elements in interfering conduct under property rights law: The dispute concerns a property rights claim, specifically a challenge based on a de facto expropriation, where the material facts relate to the interpretation of whether such a concept requires subjective elements of the interfering party. The decisive legal basis for the ruling is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, as the case was deemed to have fundamental significance, offering the opportunity to further refine the established case-law definition of "factual expropriation" within property law and determine the necessity of subjective intent.

Keywords

AI generated
subjective law expropriation costs right to property interpretation of the law administrative costs separation of property

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for granting the complaint and allowing the revision due to fundamental significance of the case.
§ 63 Abs. 1 GKG
Provision cited for the determination of the amount in dispute for cost purposes.
§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3 GKG
Provision cited for the determination of the amount in dispute for cost purposes.
§ 52 Abs. 1 und 4 GKG
Provision cited for the determination of the amount in dispute for cost purposes.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
BVerwGE 104, 84
Februar 1997 - BVerwG 7 C 50.95 - BVerwGE 104, 84 m.w.N.
AI generated
III ZR 308/20
State liability for expropriation-like interference: insufficiency of complaint regarding direct property impairment and missing negligence finding
8 B 7/10, 8 B 57/09
Admissibility of hearing objection against substantive legal assessment of de facto expropriation in land reform proceedings
8 B 43/09
Bona fide acquisition of state-allocated housing: evidentiary burden for good faith and admissibility of procedural objections under German Property Law
8 B 27/10
DDR expropriation restitution: Presumptions of manipulative intent and proof standards under § 1 Abs. 3 VermG
8 B 38/10
Unredlich acquisition under § 4 Abs. 3 VermG via GDR expropriation: necessity of Erwerber fault

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Main ground for granting the complaint and allowing the revision due to fundamental significance of the case.

§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3 GKG

Provision cited for the determination of the amount in dispute for cost purposes.

§ 52 Abs. 1 und 4 GKG

Provision cited for the determination of the amount in dispute for cost purposes.

§ 63 Abs. 1 GKG

Provision cited for the determination of the amount in dispute for cost purposes.

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; faktischer Enteignungsbegriff

[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, den durch das Bundesverwaltungsgericht in ständiger Rechtsprechung für das Vermögensrecht entwickelten sogenannten faktischen Enteignungsbegriff (vgl. Urteil vom 13. Februar 1997 - BVerwG 7 C 50.95 - BVerwGE 104, 84 m.w.N. = Buchholz 428 § 1 VermG Nr. 104) weiter zu präzisieren, insbesondere dahin, ob und inwieweit der enteignende Zugriff subjektive Elemente voraussetzt.

Die Streitwertfestsetzung beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1 und 3, § 52 Abs. 1 und 4, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG.