Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
9 B 1/24, 9 B 1/24 (9 C 3/24) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2024:260624B9B1.24.0 Generato dall'IA

Tenant standing to challenge road construction planning approval after subletting leased property

Numero d'incarto 9 B 1/24, 9 B 1/24 (9 C 3/24)
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Accolto (Allowed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Administrative Court granted the plaintiff's complaint, reversed the Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeal's refusal to admit revision, and admitted the appeal, leaving the underlying administrative court judgment otherwise intact pending the merits hearing. The dispute concerned a land tenant's standing to challenge a road construction planning approval (Planfeststellungsbeschluss) that would expropriate their leased property, specifically after the tenant had sublet the land. The decisive legal basis was § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, as the court determined the case had fundamental significance regarding whether a tenant retains standing to sue against a planning approval when they have sublet the affected land.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG; Tenant standing to challenge road construction planning approval after subletting leased property: The dispute concerned a land tenant's standing to challenge a road construction planning approval (Planfeststellungsbeschluss) that would expropriate their leased property, specifically after the tenant had sublet the land. The decisive legal basis was § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, as the court determined the case had fundamental significance regarding whether a tenant retains standing to sue against a planning approval when they have sublet the affected land.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
cosa locata approvazione dei piani legittimazione a ricorrere legittimazione a contestare licenza costruzione stradale diritto fondiario

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for admitting the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question regarding tenant standing.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
1, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG i.
Generato dall'IA
9 C 3.24
Standing of a sub-lessee to challenge road planning approval under constitutional property protections despite intermediate subletting
4 BN 6/16
Standing of real property rights holders to challenge zoning plan restrictions on servitudes
4 BN 28/23
Norm Control Standing: Property Owner's Entitlement to Challenge Development Plan Under § 47 Abs. 2 VwGO and Art. 14 GG
4 BN 27/12
Standing to challenge project-related development plan: precedence of zoning provisions over civil neighbor rights and sufficiency of factual findings for immediate encroachment
9 C 14/11
Standing to challenge highway plan approval: expropriatory prior effect extends to property rights secured by Auflassungsvormerkung

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Main ground for admitting the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question regarding tenant standing.

§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG i. V. m. Nr. 34.2.2 des Streitwertkatalogs für die Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit

Basis for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Revisionszulassung; Klagebefugnis gegen Planfeststellungsbeschluss bei Unterverpachtung des betroffenen Grundstücks

[TENOR]

Die Entscheidung des Bayerischen Verwaltungsgerichtshofs über die Nichtzulassung der Revision im Urteil vom 21. April 2023 wird aufgehoben, soweit sie die Klage der Klägerin zu 1. betrifft. Insoweit wird die Revision zugelassen.

Die Entscheidung über die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens folgt der Kostenentscheidung in der Hauptsache.

Der Streitwert für das Revisionsverfahren wird vorläufig auf 60 000 € festgesetzt.

[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 zur Klärung der Frage beitragen, ob ein Pächter, der sich gegen die Inanspruchnahme seines Pachtgrundstücks für ein Straßenbauvorhaben zur Wehr setzt, auch dann für eine Klage gegen den Planfeststellungsbeschluss klagebefugt ist, wenn er das Pachtgrundstück unterverpachtet hat.

Die vorläufige Festsetzung des Streitwerts für das Revisionsverfahren folgt aus § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG i. V. m. Nr. 34.2.2 des Streitwertkatalogs für die Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit.