Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
9 B 98/09, 9 B 98/09 (9 C 6/10) Généré par l'IA

Proportionality of cost-allocation clauses in public-law development contracts under § 124 Abs. 3 BauGB

Numéro de cause 9 B 98/09, 9 B 98/09 (9 C 6/10)
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 (BVerwG) admitted the plaintiff's appeal for revision, finding the lower court's decision to be of fundamental legal significance and thereby allowing the plaintiff to challenge the validity of specific contract terms in the Federal Court. The dispute concerns the proportionality and adequacy of counterperformance in a public-law infrastructure development contract (Erschließungsvertrag), specifically whether a clause requiring the developer to bear cost shares that would otherwise be exclusively chargeable to third-party or foreign property owners renders the contractual arrangement inherently disproportionate under public law. The decisive legal issue is the interpretation of § 56 Abs. 1 Satz 2 VwVfG (equivalent to § 123 Abs. 1 Satz 2 LVwG SH) and § 124 Abs. 3 BauGB, determining if such cost-allocation provisions always constitute an undue imbalance prohibited by these norms.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 124 Abs. 3 BauGB; Proportionality of cost-allocation clauses in public-law development contracts under § 124 Abs. 3 BauGB: The dispute concerns the proportionality and adequacy of counterperformance in a public-law infrastructure development contract (Erschließungsvertrag), specifically whether a clause requiring the developer to bear cost shares that would otherwise be exclusively chargeable to third-party or foreign property owners renders the contractual arrangement inherently disproportionate under public law. The decisive legal issue is the interpretation of § 56 Abs. 1 Satz 2 VwVfG (equivalent to § 123 Abs. 1 Satz 2 LVwG SH) and § 124 Abs. 3 BauGB, determining if such cost-allocation provisions always constitute an undue imbalance prohibited by these norms.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
répartition des frais proportionnalité interprétation du contrat clause de répartition frais d'équipement promotion immobilière

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Procedural basis explicitly cited in the dispositive to admit the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question.
§ 124 Abs. 3 BauGB
§ 124 Abs. 3 BauGB führt.
Généré par l'IA
9 C 6/10
Validity of development contract imposing third-party costs on developer under § 124 BauGB
9 B 6/11
Scope of development contracts under § 124 BauGB and the admissibility of levying development charges for excluded land acquisition costs
1 BvR 3533/13
Arbitrary interpretation of contractual development cost allocation clause in land purchase agreement
4 C 11/10
Validity of urban development contracts for financing indivisible infrastructure costs as prerequisites or consequences of new development projects
9 B 6/18
Allocation of development costs in a municipal statute: whether partial building-height restrictions on a parcel adjust the chargeable area under the equivalence principle

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

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

Procedural basis explicitly cited in the dispositive to admit the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question.

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

Öffentlich-rechtlicher Vertrag; Austauschvertrag; Angemessenheit der Gegenleistung

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde der Klägerin ist zulässig und begründet. Die Revision ist gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache zuzulassen. Sie kann dem Bundesverwaltungsgericht Gelegenheit zur Klärung der Frage geben, ob die Bestimmung in einem Erschließungsvertrag, nach der der Erschließungsunternehmer auch die Aufwandsanteile zu tragen hat, die im Falle einer Beitragsveranlagung nicht ihm, sondern allein Dritt- bzw. Fremdanliegern auferlegt werden könnten, stets zur Unangemessenheit der vertraglichen Regelung i.S.v. § 56 Abs. 1 Satz 2 VwVfG (= § 123 Abs. 1 Satz 2 LVwG SH) bzw. § 124 Abs. 3 BauGB führt.