Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
3 B 36/10, 3 B 36/10 (3 C 38/10) Généré par l'IA

Whether the four-year exclusion period for reclaiming load equalization payments can be extended beyond ten years by interruptions

Numéro de cause 3 B 36/10, 3 B 36/10 (3 C 38/10)
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 granted permission for appeal to the plaintiff, finding that the appeal against the lower court’s judgment was admissible. The case concerns a dispute over the clawback of financial equalization payments and specifically challenges whether the four-year exclusion period for claims under the Load Equalization Act can be extended beyond a ten-year limit through interruptions. The court held that the matter possesses fundamental legal significance, necessitating a definitive clarification on the interpretation of § 349 Abs. 5 Satz 4 Halbs. 1 and 2 LAG, and ordered the proceedings to continue in revision to resolve this open question following its 2008 precedent.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 3 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG; Whether the four-year exclusion period for reclaiming load equalization payments can be extended beyond ten years by interruptions: The case concerns a dispute over the clawback of financial equalization payments and specifically challenges whether the four-year exclusion period for claims under the Load Equalization Act can be extended beyond a ten-year limit through interruptions. The court held that the matter possesses fundamental legal significance, necessitating a definitive clarification on the interpretation of § 349 Abs. 5 Satz 4 Halbs. 1 and 2 LAG, and ordered the proceedings to continue in revision to resolve this open question following its 2008 precedent.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
interruption de la prescription objet du litige mesure d'éloignement interprétation de l'arrêt délai de contrôle durée de l'infraction

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for granting the appeal and admitting the revision based on fundamental significance.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
3 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.
§ 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 3 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Provisions applied for the determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.
Généré par l'IA
8 B 43/19
Burden Equalization Recovery: Adequacy of Counter-Performance and Exclusion Period under § 349 LAG
8 B 44/19
Repayment under Load Equalization Act: admissibility of revision for alleged divergence on counter-performance adequacy and calculation
3 B 27/10
Reclamation of Lastenausgleich: Limitation period start upon statutory lifting of state administration and agency knowledge of damages compensation
VIII ZR 279/11
Validity of immediate termination for disputed payment and statute of limitations for restitution of overcharged utilities
3 C 39/10
Recovery of Labor Balance Payments: Ten-Year Absolute Limit on Reclaiming Damages Compensation Despite Repeated Interruptions

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

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

Main ground for granting the appeal and admitting the revision based on fundamental significance.

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

Provisions applied for the 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

Rückforderung von Lastenausgleichsleistungen; Verlängerung der Ausschlussfrist; Revisionszulassung

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde ist begründet. Die Rechtssache hat grundsätzliche Bedeutung im Sinne von § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO. Das Revisionsverfahren kann dem Senat voraussichtlich Gelegenheit geben, im Anschluss an sein Urteil vom 30. April 2008 - BVerwG 3 C 17.07 - (Buchholz 427.3 § 349 LAG Nr. 15) abschließend zu klären, ob die vierjährige Frist nach § 349 Abs. 5 Satz 4 Halbs. 1 LAG durch Unterbrechungen über die in Halbs. 2 der Vorschrift genannten zehn Jahre hinaus erstreckt werden kann.

Die Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 3 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.