Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
8 B 41/10, 8 B 41/10 (8 C 2/11) Généré par l'IA

De facto expropriation: Requirement of subjective elements in interfering conduct under property rights law

Numéro de cause 8 B 41/10, 8 B 41/10 (8 C 2/11)
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 (8th Senate) granted permission to file a revision, ruling that the appellant’s complaint against the lower court’s refusal was well-founded. The dispute concerns a property rights claim, specifically a challenge based on a de facto expropriation, where the material facts relate to the interpretation of whether such a concept requires subjective elements of the interfering party. The decisive legal basis for the ruling is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, as the case was deemed to have fundamental significance, offering the opportunity to further refine the established case-law definition of "factual expropriation" within property law and determine the necessity of subjective intent.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 und 3 GKG, § 52 Abs. 1 und 4 GKG; De facto expropriation: Requirement of subjective elements in interfering conduct under property rights law: The dispute concerns a property rights claim, specifically a challenge based on a de facto expropriation, where the material facts relate to the interpretation of whether such a concept requires subjective elements of the interfering party. The decisive legal basis for the ruling is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, as the case was deemed to have fundamental significance, offering the opportunity to further refine the established case-law definition of "factual expropriation" within property law and determine the necessity of subjective intent.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
droit subjectif frais d'expropriation droit à la propriété interprétation du droit frais administratifs séparation de biens

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for granting the complaint and allowing the revision due to fundamental significance of the case.
§ 63 Abs. 1 GKG
Provision cited for the determination of the amount in dispute for cost purposes.
§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3 GKG
Provision cited for the determination of the amount in dispute for cost purposes.
§ 52 Abs. 1 und 4 GKG
Provision cited for the determination of the amount in dispute for cost purposes.

Jurisprudence citée

Généré par l'IA
BVerwGE 104, 84
Februar 1997 - BVerwG 7 C 50.95 - BVerwGE 104, 84 m.w.N.
Généré par l'IA
III ZR 308/20
State liability for expropriation-like interference: insufficiency of complaint regarding direct property impairment and missing negligence finding
8 B 7/10, 8 B 57/09
Admissibility of hearing objection against substantive legal assessment of de facto expropriation in land reform proceedings
8 B 43/09
Bona fide acquisition of state-allocated housing: evidentiary burden for good faith and admissibility of procedural objections under German Property Law
8 B 27/10
DDR expropriation restitution: Presumptions of manipulative intent and proof standards under § 1 Abs. 3 VermG
8 B 38/10
Unredlich acquisition under § 4 Abs. 3 VermG via GDR expropriation: necessity of Erwerber fault

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

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

Main ground for granting the complaint and allowing the revision due to fundamental significance of the case.

§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3 GKG

Provision cited for the determination of the amount in dispute for cost purposes.

§ 52 Abs. 1 und 4 GKG

Provision cited for the determination of the amount in dispute for cost purposes.

§ 63 Abs. 1 GKG

Provision cited for the determination of the amount in dispute for cost purposes.

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; faktischer Enteignungsbegriff

[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, den durch das Bundesverwaltungsgericht in ständiger Rechtsprechung für das Vermögensrecht entwickelten sogenannten faktischen Enteignungsbegriff (vgl. Urteil vom 13. Februar 1997 - BVerwG 7 C 50.95 - BVerwGE 104, 84 m.w.N. = Buchholz 428 § 1 VermG Nr. 104) weiter zu präzisieren, insbesondere dahin, ob und inwieweit der enteignende Zugriff subjektive Elemente voraussetzt.

Die Streitwertfestsetzung beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1 und 3, § 52 Abs. 1 und 4, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG.