Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
9 B 30/11, 9 B 30/11 (9 C 12/11) Generato dall'IA

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

Numero d'incarto 9 B 30/11, 9 B 30/11 (9 C 12/11)
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 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.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'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.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
infrastruttura urbana spese per l'allestimento dei piani contributo alle spese d'amministrazione sviluppo urbano spese legali obbligo comunale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'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.
Generato dall'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

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'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.

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

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.