Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
8 B 68/16, 8 B 68/16 (8 C 10/17) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2017:050417B8B68.16.0 Généré par l'IA

Scope of fractional restitution for expropriated company shares with assets in reunification area: object-less beneficiary determination versus specific asset claims

Numéro de cause 8 B 68/16, 8 B 68/16 (8 C 10/17)
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 granted the defendant's complaint and allowed the revision appeal based on fundamental significance, leaving the prior instance decisions pending further review on the merits. The dispute concerned a restitution claim under the Restitution Act, specifically whether an entitlement to a fractional share of restitution can be established for assets expropriated outside the spatial scope of § 1(6) VermG (German Restitution Act) but belonging to a company located in West Germany with assets in the reunification area. The decisive legal issue, which necessitates the revision, is whether the statute permits an "object-less" determination of the beneficiary's entitlement proportional to the expropriated share, or restricts it to specific, individually reclaimed assets, governed by § 132(2) No. 1 VwGO (Administrative Court Rules of Procedure).

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 GKG, § 52 Abs. 2 GKG; Scope of fractional restitution for expropriated company shares with assets in reunification area: object-less beneficiary determination versus specific asset claims: The dispute concerned a restitution claim under the Restitution Act, specifically whether an entitlement to a fractional share of restitution can be established for assets expropriated outside the spatial scope of § 1(6) VermG (German Restitution Act) but belonging to a company located in West Germany with assets in the reunification area. The decisive legal issue, which necessitates the revision, is whether the statute permits an "object-less" determination of the beneficiary's entitlement proportional to the expropriated share, or restricts it to specific, individually reclaimed assets, governed by § 132(2) No. 1 VwGO (Administrative Court Rules of Procedure).

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
rétrocession de biens expropriés bien à affectation déterminée part sociale pouvoir d'examen assainissement de l'entreprise en droit fiscal dessaisissement dans la faillite

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Basis for admitting the revision due to fundamental significance.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Legal basis cited for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.
§ 47 Abs. 1 GKG
Legal basis cited for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.
§ 52 Abs. 2 GKG
Legal basis cited for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.
Généré par l'IA
8 B 1/15
Extent of fractional restitution under the Property Restoration Act for post-expropriation acquisitions by the expropriated entity
8 B 48/16, 8 B 48/16 (8 C 2/17)
Prerequisites for fractional restitution of expropriated corporate shares under § 3 Abs. 1 Satz 4 Halbs. 2 VermG
8 C 10/16
Prerequisite of prior restitution for fractional restitution claims based on expropriation of Western shareholdings in holding companies with assets in the accession area
8 C 3/17
Validity of fractional restitution compensation applications: requirement for specific asset identification and prohibition of objectless entitlement declarations
8 C 4/17
Partial restitution compensation: specific identification of assets required for valid application and prohibition of "object-less" entitlement findings

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

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

Basis for admitting the revision due to fundamental significance.

§ 47 Abs. 1 GKG

Legal basis cited for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.

§ 52 Abs. 2 GKG

Legal basis cited for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.

§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Legal basis cited for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.

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; Bruchteilsrestitutionsberechtigung

[GRUENDE]

Die zulässige Beschwerde der Beklagten ist begründet. Die Revision ist gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung zuzulassen. Das Revisionsverfahren führt auf die Frage, ob eine Bruchteilsrestitutionsberechtigung wegen einer nicht in den räumlichen Geltungsbereich des § 1 Abs. 6 VermG fallenden Entziehung von Anteilen an einem in Westdeutschland belegenen Unternehmen, dem Vermögensgegenstände im Beitrittsgebiet gehörten, nur bezüglich bestimmter, anteilig zurückverlangter Vermögensgegenstände getroffen werden kann, oder ob das Gesetz auch eine "objektlose" Berechtigtenfeststellung in Höhe der entzogenen Beteiligung zulässt.

Die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 2, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.