Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
5 B 39/11, 5 B 39/11 (5 C 22/11) Generato dall'IA

Admission of revision on the fundamental significance of youth welfare cost contribution law under § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Numero d'incarto 5 B 39/11, 5 B 39/11 (5 C 22/11)
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 granted the defendant's complaint and admitted the revision for lack of finality, allowing the appeal to proceed on grounds of the fundamental significance of the legal issues involved; the court did not decide the merits but referred the case back for further proceedings. The dispute concerns the assessment of costs for youth welfare services (Jugendhilfe) and the associated contribution obligations under social law. The decisive legal basis for the admission of the revision is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, focusing on the clarification of fundamental questions within the law of cost contributions for youth aid.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; Admission of revision on the fundamental significance of youth welfare cost contribution law under § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO: The dispute concerns the assessment of costs for youth welfare services (Jugendhilfe) and the associated contribution obligations under social law. The decisive legal basis for the admission of the revision is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, focusing on the clarification of fundamental questions within the law of cost contributions for youth aid.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
motivi di revisione contributo alle spese d'amministrazione procedura di gratuito patrocinio contributo servizio sociale diritto delle obbligazioni

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
The provision explicitly cited in the decision to justify the admission of the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal issue.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
1 BvR 3050/13
Eine gegen diese Entscheidung erhobene Verfassungsbeschwerde hat das Bundesverfassungsgericht mit Beschluss vom 27.01.2015 - 1 BvR 3050/13 - nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.
1 BvR 1864/22
Dezember 2022 - 1 BvR 1864/22 - nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.
Generato dall'IA
5 C 10/09
Jugendhilfe Kostenbeitrag: Angemessenheit erfordert Belassung des unterhaltsrechtlichen Selbstbehalts
5 B 36/11, 5 B 36/11 (5 C 25/11)
Cost reimbursement between public youth welfare agencies and the applicable scope of § 89a Abs. 3 SGB VIII
5 C 22/11
Jugendhilferechtlicher Kostenbeitrag: Abzug tatsächlicher Einkommensteuern und Rechtsmissbrauch durch Steuerklassenwechsel
5 B 13/11, 5 B 13/11 (5 C 12/11)
Admission of revision on entitlement to foster care allowances for kinship care under §§ 27(2a), 33, 39 SGB VIII
5 B 6/24
Inadmissibility of revision complaint challenging exclusion of general business risk buffer from child and youth welfare fee calculation

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

The provision explicitly cited in the decision to justify the admission of the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal issue.

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

Kosten der Jugendhilfe

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde der Beklagten ist zulässig und begründet. Die Revision ist jedenfalls nach § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache zuzulassen.

Die Revision kann dem Senat insbesondere Gelegenheit zur Klärung der angesprochenen grundsätzlichen Fragen aus dem Bereich des jugendhilferechtlichen Kostenbeitragsrechts geben.

[SONST]

Eine gegen diese Entscheidung erhobene Verfassungsbeschwerde hat das Bundesverfassungsgericht mit Beschluss vom 27.01.2015 - 1 BvR 3050/13 - nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

Eine gegen diese Entscheidung erhobene Verfassungsbeschwerde hat das Bundesverfassungsgericht mit Beschluss vom 20. Dezember 2022 - 1 BvR 1864/22 - nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.