Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
4 B 2/13, 4 B 2/13 (4 C 33/13) Generato dall'IA

Whether converting an expired obligation suit into a continuing declaratory action constitutes an impermissible claim amendment under § 91 VwGO

Numero d'incarto 4 B 2/13, 4 B 2/13 (4 C 33/13)
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 overturned the lower appellate court's refusal to admit the appeal and admitted the revision for further review. The dispute concerned whether changing a previously mooted obligation suit, originally seeking the issuance of a preliminary building permit, into a declaration of illegality regarding the authority's refusal constitutes a permissible amendment of the claim under administrative procedural law. The decisive legal question, identified as having fundamental importance, is whether such a shift exceeds the scope of the subject matter in a continuing declaratory action under § 113 Abs. 1 Satz 4 VwGO and thus qualifies as a claim amendment under § 91 VwGO, governed by the admission criteria of §§ 130a, 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1, and 133 VwGO.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 113 Abs. 1 Satz 4 VwGO, § 91 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG; Whether converting an expired obligation suit into a continuing declaratory action constitutes an impermissible claim amendment under § 91 VwGO: The dispute concerned whether changing a previously mooted obligation suit, originally seeking the issuance of a preliminary building permit, into a declaration of illegality regarding the authority's refusal constitutes a permissible amendment of the claim under administrative procedural law. The decisive legal question, identified as having fundamental importance, is whether such a shift exceeds the scope of the subject matter in a continuing declaratory action under § 113 Abs. 1 Satz 4 VwGO and thus qualifies as a claim amendment under § 91 VwGO, governed by the admission criteria of §§ 130a, 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1, and 133 VwGO.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
modificazione delle conclusioni azione di accertamento causa dell'obbligazione oggetto della lite revisione processuale licenza edilizia preliminare

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Legal basis for admitting the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question regarding claim amendment.
§ 113 Abs. 1 Satz 4 VwGO
§ 91 VwGO
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.
§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Statutory basis cited for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute in the revision proceedings.
Generato dall'IA
4 C 33/13
Converting a moot performance claim into a continuing declaratory action: permissible time frame for establishing the authority's duty to act
8 C 22/19
Admissibility of modifying challenge to amendatory order: waiver of filing deadline for legally indivisible restitution rules
8 B 74/12
Admissibility of revision for interpreting declaratory content of administrative acts and severability of revocation and removal orders
4 B 42/14
Admissibility of intermediate judgment on claim admissibility and conversion of mandamus to continuation declaratory action
1 WB 59/13
Inadmissibility of post-filing claim amendment in military service complaint proceedings under VwGO § 91

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Legal basis for admitting the revision due to the fundamental significance of the legal question regarding claim amendment.

§ 132 Abs. 1, § 133 Abs. 1 i.V.m. §§ 130a, 125 Abs. 2 Satz 4 VwGO

Procedural provisions establishing the admissibility of the complaint against the refusal to admit the revision.

§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Statutory basis cited for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute in 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

Klageänderung und Streitgegenstand einer Fortsetzungsfeststellungsklage

[TENOR]

Auf die Beschwerde der Klägerin wird die Entscheidung des Oberverwaltungsgerichts für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen über die Nichtzulassung der Revision gegen seinen Beschluss vom 12. Oktober 2012 aufgehoben.

Die Revision wird zugelassen.

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

Der Wert des Streitgegenstandes wird für das Revisionsverfahren vorläufig auf 37 500 € festgesetzt.

[GRUENDE]

Die gemäß § 132 Abs. 1, § 133 Abs. 1 i.V.m. §§ 130a, 125 Abs. 2 Satz 4 VwGO zulässige Beschwerde ist begründet. Die Revision ist wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache nach § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO zuzulassen. Das Revisionsverfahren kann zur weiteren Klärung der Frage beitragen, ob eine über den Streitgegenstand einer Fortsetzungsfeststellungsklage gemäß § 113 Abs. 1 Satz 4 VwGO analog hinausgehende Klageänderung im Sinne des § 91 VwGO vorliegt, wenn ein Kläger seine auf Erteilung eines Bauvorbescheids gerichtete, zwischenzeitlich erledigte Verpflichtungsklage auf den Feststellungsantrag umstellt, dass die Weigerung der Behörde, den begehrten Verwaltungsakt zu erlassen, im Zeitpunkt des erledigenden Ereignisses rechtswidrig war.

Die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.