Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
9 B 30/11, 9 B 30/11 (9 C 12/11) Généré par l'IA

Municipal costs for extra-district pipeline installations: admissibility as urban planning follow-up costs under § 11(1) sentence 2 no. 3 BauGB

Numéro de cause 9 B 30/11, 9 B 30/11 (9 C 12/11)
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 dismissed the defendant's complaint and admitted the revision for further review, determining that the case raises a question of fundamental legal significance. The dispute concerns whether a municipality's financial contributions for pipeline installations located outside a designated development area, which are generally subject to compulsory fees under the State Municipal Levy Act, can be validly transferred through an urban planning follow-up cost agreement. The decisive legal issue is the compatibility of such cost-shifting mechanisms with the statutory definition of urban planning follow-up costs under § 11 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Nr. 3 of the German Building Code (BauGB), a question the higher court must now resolve.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 11 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Nr. 3 BauGB; Municipal costs for extra-district pipeline installations: admissibility as urban planning follow-up costs under § 11(1) sentence 2 no. 3 BauGB: The dispute concerns whether a municipality's financial contributions for pipeline installations located outside a designated development area, which are generally subject to compulsory fees under the State Municipal Levy Act, can be validly transferred through an urban planning follow-up cost agreement. The decisive legal issue is the compatibility of such cost-shifting mechanisms with the statutory definition of urban planning follow-up costs under § 11 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Nr. 3 of the German Building Code (BauGB), a question the higher court must now resolve.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
infrastructure urbaine frais d'élaboration des plans contribution aux frais d'administration développement urbain honoraires d'avocat obligation communale

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Procedural basis cited in the dispositive to admit the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question.
§ 11 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Nr. 3 BauGB
§ 11 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Nr. 3 BauGB sein kann.
Généré par l'IA
9 C 10/15
Preliminary levies for development contributions: validity of unified billing for distinct street sections under § 130(2) sentence 3 BauGB
9 B 9/18
Scope of municipal discretion in calculating infrastructure contributions where zoning plans impose varying height restrictions on property segments
4 B 16/19
Urban Development Compensation: Exclusion of Non-Sanierungsbedingte Value Increases and Burden of Proof for External Effects under BauGB §§ 153, 154
VII ZR 283/13
Construction cost contribution for sewage connection: whether prior treatment via private small-scale clarifier with public overflow precludes "first-time" connection to public wastewater network
9 C 7/13
Municipal development contribution for property extending into outer area: Precedence of clarification statute over statutory depth limit for determining the developed area under § 131 BauGB

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

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

Procedural basis 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

Aufwendungen für leitungsgebundene Anlage und städtebaulicher Folgelastenvertrag

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde der Beklagten 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 Übernahme von Aufwendungen der Gemeinde für außerhalb eines Erschließungsgebiets gelegene leitungsgebundene Anlagen, die grundsätzlich der Beitragspflicht nach dem Landes-Kommunalabgabengesetz unterliegen, Gegenstand eines städtebaulichen Folgelastenvertrages i.S.v. § 11 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Nr. 3 BauGB sein kann.