Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
9 B 62/15, 9 B 62/15 (9 C 12/16) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2016:210716B9B62.15.0 Généré par l'IA

Admissibility of revision to clarify remuneration standards for procedural representatives under § 119 Abs. 3 FlurbG

Numéro de cause 9 B 62/15, 9 B 62/15 (9 C 12/16)
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Allemagne (DE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Admis (Allowed)
Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The Federal Administrative Court allowed the defendant's appeal, granting leave for a revision proceeding to address the unresolved legal standard for remuneration of procedural representatives in land consolidation cases. The dispute concerned the interpretation of § 119 Abs. 3 of the Land Consolidation Act (FlurbG), specifically regarding the criteria for calculating fees for representatives in these proceedings. The court determined that the issue possesses fundamental significance as it has not previously been clarified by the Federal Administrative Court, and it fixed the provisional value in dispute for the revision instance pursuant to §§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, 52 Abs. 3, and 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 of the Court Costs Act (GKG).

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 3, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG; Admissibility of revision to clarify remuneration standards for procedural representatives under § 119 Abs. 3 FlurbG: The dispute concerned the interpretation of § 119 Abs. 3 of the Land Consolidation Act (FlurbG), specifically regarding the criteria for calculating fees for representatives in these proceedings. The court determined that the issue possesses fundamental significance as it has not previously been clarified by the Federal Administrative Court, and it fixed the provisional value in dispute for the revision instance pursuant to §§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, 52 Abs. 3, and 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 of the Court Costs Act (GKG).

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
révision procédurale honoraires d'avocat valeur litigieuse violation des formes substantielles adaptation des rémunérations révision de rente d'invalidité

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for the verdict, as it justifies the allowance of the revision appeal due to the fundamental significance of the legal question.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
3, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.
§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 3, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Procedural basis cited in the dispositive for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceeding.
Généré par l'IA
9 BN 4/13, 9 BN 4/13 (9 CN 1/14)
Admissibility of revision to develop jurisprudence on binding effect of land readjustment plan determinations
B 5 RS 40/15 B
Admissibility of revision for general significance: classification of wage data determination proceedings under § 6 AAÜG as property right disputes under § 287 Abs. 2 ZPO
5 B 15/11
Admission of revision for fundamental significance of resuming administrative compensation proceedings after jurisprudential change
1 A 7/15
Admissibility of Nichtigkeits- und Restitutionsantrag against final procedural orders dismissing revision
VI B 53/15
Admissibility of revision for unity of case law requiring decisive legal principle and comparable facts; exclusion of hypothetical reasoning and unrelated-year evidence from procedural error review

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Main ground for the verdict, as it justifies the allowance of the revision appeal due to the fundamental significance of the legal question.

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

Procedural basis cited in the dispositive for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceeding.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

Revisionszulassung; Vergütung des Verfahrensvertreters nach § 119 Abs. 3 FlurbG

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde des Beklagten ist zulässig und begründet. Die Revision ist gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung zuzulassen. Sie kann dem Senat Gelegenheit geben, über den vom Bundesverwaltungsgericht bisher nicht geklärten Maßstab für die Vergütung des Verfahrensvertreters gemäß § 119 Abs. 3 FlurbG zu entscheiden.

Die vorläufige Festsetzung des Streitwertes für das Revisionsverfahren folgt aus § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 3, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.