Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
7 B 44/09, 7 B 44/09 (7 C 2/10) Généré par l'IA

Interplay between § 15(2) BImSchG exemption declarations and § 18(3) BImSchG time extension requirements for approved installations

Numéro de cause 7 B 44/09, 7 B 44/09 (7 C 2/10)
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 an appeal for revision and remanded the case, finding that the lower court's failure to address whether a declaration of exemption affects the requirement that a requested extension of time does not endanger the purpose of the law raises a question of fundamental importance. The dispute concerned a challenge to the denial of an extension of time for modifications to installation facilities subject to approval under the Federal Immission Control Act, specifically interrogating the legal interplay between a § 15(2) sentence 2 exemption declaration and the substantive prerequisites for a § 18(3) time extension. The decisive legal basis involves § 132(2) No. 1 VwGO regarding fundamental significance, with the core issue hinging on the binding effect of the exemption declaration and the interpretation of § 18(3) BImSchG in conjunction with § 15 BImSchG.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 und 3 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 GKG; Interplay between § 15(2) BImSchG exemption declarations and § 18(3) BImSchG time extension requirements for approved installations: The dispute concerned a challenge to the denial of an extension of time for modifications to installation facilities subject to approval under the Federal Immission Control Act, specifically interrogating the legal interplay between a § 15(2) sentence 2 exemption declaration and the substantive prerequisites for a § 18(3) time extension. The decisive legal basis involves § 132(2) No. 1 VwGO regarding fundamental significance, with the core issue hinging on the binding effect of the exemption declaration and the interpretation of § 18(3) BImSchG in conjunction with § 15 BImSchG.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
procédure d'approbation valeur litigieuse conditions matérielles prolongation de délai modification du jugement règlements d’exemption par catégorie

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Basis for admitting the appeal for revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question regarding the interplay between exemption declarations and time extensions.
§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG
Provision applied to determine the value in dispute for the revision procedure.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Provision cited regarding the value in dispute for the revision procedure.
§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3 GKG
Basis for determining the value in dispute for the appeal procedure.
§ 47 Abs. 1 GKG
Basis for determining the value in dispute for the revision procedure.
Généré par l'IA
7 C 2/10
Scope of binding effect of a § 15 Abs. 2 Satz 2 BImSchG exemption declaration in extending permit deadlines under § 18 Abs. 3 BImSchG
7 B 38/09
Extension of grandfathered facility legal position under § 18 BImSchG
7 B 6/11, 7 B 6/11 (7 C 7/11)
Admissibility of appeal based on fundamental significance: whether an emission control exemption under § 15(2) Sentence 2 BImSchG can infringe third-party rights
7 C 9/19
Immissionsschutzrecht: Extent of review and error correction in extension decisions under § 18(3) BImSchG
7 B 4/24
Expiry of building permit integrated into emission protection permit and impact on deadline extension under § 18 BImSchG

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

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

Basis for admitting the appeal for revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question regarding the interplay between exemption declarations and time extensions.

§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3 GKG

Basis for determining the value in dispute for the appeal procedure.

§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG

Provision applied to determine the value in dispute for the appeal procedure.

§ 47 Abs. 1 GKG

Basis for determining the value in dispute for the revision procedure.

§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG

Provision applied to determine the value in dispute for the revision procedure.

§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Provision cited regarding the value in dispute for the revision procedure.

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

Änderung genehmigungsbedürftiger Anlagen; Freistellungserklärung; Fristverlängerung

[GRUENDE]

Der von der Klägerin aufgeworfenen - und vom Berufungsgericht verneinten - Frage, ob eine Freistellungserklärung nach § 15 Abs. 2 Satz 2 BImSchG Bedeutung - und gegebenenfalls welche - für die im Rahmen des § 18 Abs. 3 BImSchG zu prüfende Voraussetzung hat, dass die beantragte Fristverlängerung den Zweck des Gesetzes nicht gefährdet, kommt grundsätzliche Bedeutung zu (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO). Ihre Beantwortung hängt u.a. davon ab, was bestandskräftiger Gegenstand der Freistellungserklärung ist und damit an deren (möglicher) Bindungswirkung teil hat.

Die Festsetzung des Streitwerts beruht für das Beschwerdeverfahren auf § 47 Abs. 1 und 3, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG, für das Revisionsverfahren auf § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.