Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
3 B 94/12, 3 B 94/12 (3 C 16/13) AI generated

Correction of obvious errors in OGS agricultural subsidy approvals under Art. 19 and Art. 21 VO (EG) 1122/2009

Case Number 3 B 94/12, 3 B 94/12 (3 C 16/13)
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 the complaint for leave to file a revision, finding the case of fundamental significance to allow further clarification on the scope of correcting obvious errors in agricultural aid approvals. The dispute concerned the correction of a non-governmental organization subsidy approval and the subsequent assistance request, specifically whether a 11.4-hectare area used for asparagus cultivation in 2005 was eligible for an operating premium. The decisive legal basis includes § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO for the grant of revision leave, and the substantive issue is defined by the interpretation of Art. 19 VO (EG) 796/2004 and its equivalent provision Art. 21 VO (EG) Nr. 1122/2009 regarding the correction of obvious errors.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG; Correction of obvious errors in OGS agricultural subsidy approvals under Art. 19 and Art. 21 VO (EG) 1122/2009: The dispute concerned the correction of a non-governmental organization subsidy approval and the subsequent assistance request, specifically whether a 11.4-hectare area used for asparagus cultivation in 2005 was eligible for an operating premium. The decisive legal basis includes § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO for the grant of revision leave, and the substantive issue is defined by the interpretation of Art. 19 VO (EG) 796/2004 and its equivalent provision Art. 21 VO (EG) Nr. 1122/2009 regarding the correction of obvious errors.

Keywords

AI generated
agricultural law subsidy administrative error application for revision substantive errors aid in the agricultural sector

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Serves as the main ground for the verdict, justifying the grant of leave for revision due to the case's fundamental significance.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
1, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.
§ 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Provisions applied in the dispositive to determine the provisional amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.
AI generated
3 B 91/12
OGS Approval for Agricultural Payment Claims: Validity of National Filing Requirements and Correction of Missing Application as Obvious Error
3 B 34/12
OGS payment claims: Failure to file approval application cannot be cured via correction of obvious errors
3 B 20/12
Recovery of EU agricultural subsidies: attribution of administrative error for reliance protection under Art. 49(4)(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001
3 C 19/11
Cattle slaughter premiums: correction of premature application as obvious error under EU subsidy regulation
3 B 81/11
Milk reference quantities and individual contribution: good faith and obviousness of error under Art. 19 Reg. (EC) No 796/2004

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Serves as the main ground for the verdict, justifying the grant of leave for revision due to the case's fundamental significance.

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

Provisions applied in the dispositive to determine the provisional 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

OGS-Genehmigung; Beihilfeantrag; Berichtigung wegen offensichtlichen Irrtums; Revisionszulassung

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde hat Erfolg. Der Rechtssache kommt grundsätzliche Bedeutung zu (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO). Das Revisionsverfahren kann Gelegenheit zur weiteren Klärung der Reichweite der Berichtigung offensichtlicher Irrtümer im Sinne von Art. 19 VO (EG) 796/2004 und der inhaltsgleichen Folgebestimmung des Art. 21 VO (EG) Nr. 1122/2009 bieten.

Die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG. Er folgt der Zahl und dem Wert der Zahlungsansprüche, auf die sich die begehrten OGS-Genehmigungen beziehen, denn diese entscheiden hier darüber, ob und in welchem Umfang für die im Jahr 2005 zum Anbau von Spargel genutzte und beantragte, 11,4 ha große Fläche eine Betriebsprämie gewährt werden kann.