Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
3 B 36/10, 3 B 36/10 (3 C 38/10) Generato dall'IA

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

Numero d'incarto 3 B 36/10, 3 B 36/10 (3 C 38/10)
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 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.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'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.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
interruzione della prescrizione oggetto della lite misura di allontanamento interpretazione della sentenza termine di controllo durata dell'infrazione

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'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.
Generato dall'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

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'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.

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

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.