Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
4 BN 20/13, 4 BN 20/13 (4 CN 7/13) Generato dall'IA

Validity of preservation ordinance under § 172(1) No. 1 BauGB for perimeter block development based solely on noise reduction function

Numero d'incarto 4 BN 20/13, 4 BN 20/13 (4 CN 7/13)
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 granted leave to appeal, allowing the case to proceed to the Supreme Court after finding the plaintiff's complaint against the lower court's rejection of leave to be well-founded; the court did not issue a final judgment on the merits but determined that the revision should be heard to resolve a significant open legal question. The dispute concerned the validity of a municipal preservation ordinance (Erhaltungssatzung) aimed at maintaining a specific pattern of perimeter block development (Blockrandbebauung), specifically whether such a building arrangement could be protected solely for its sound-absorbing function for neighboring structures. The decisive legal issue centers on § 172(1) sentence 1 no. 1 of the German Building Code (BauGB), requiring clarification on whether this provision provides a sufficient legal basis for a preservation ordinance when the exclusive purpose is acoustic protection rather than broader structural or aesthetic preservation.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 172 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 1 BauGB, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG; Validity of preservation ordinance under § 172(1) No. 1 BauGB for perimeter block development based solely on noise reduction function: The dispute concerned the validity of a municipal preservation ordinance (Erhaltungssatzung) aimed at maintaining a specific pattern of perimeter block development (Blockrandbebauung), specifically whether such a building arrangement could be protected solely for its sound-absorbing function for neighboring structures. The decisive legal issue centers on § 172(1) sentence 1 no. 1 of the German Building Code (BauGB), requiring clarification on whether this provision provides a sufficient legal basis for a preservation ordinance when the exclusive purpose is acoustic protection rather than broader structural or aesthetic preservation.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
ordinanza comunale revisione di una decisione motivi protetti validità della licenza edilizia catasto dei rumori servitù di limitazione di costruzione

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for granting leave to appeal (Revisionszulassung) because the revision can contribute to further clarification of a significant legal question.
§ 172 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 1 BauGB
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Procedural rule cited for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.
§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Procedural rule cited for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute (Streitwertfestsetzung) for the revision proceedings.
§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG
Procedural rule cited for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.
Generato dall'IA
4 CN 7/13
Invalidity of municipal preservation ordinance based solely on noise-shielding function of buildings
4 BN 5/13
Preservation ordinance validity: requirement of urban-planning contribution for buildings of historical or artistic significance under § 172 BauGB
4 BN 4/13
§ 172 Abs. 3 Satz 1 Alt. 2 BauGB: Preservation ordinance requirement for urban-planning contribution of historical or artistic buildings
4 BN 6/13
Urban planning preservation ordinance: requirement of substantive contribution to urban character for buildings of historical or artistic significance under BauGB § 172
4 B 46/19, 4 B 46/19 (4 C 6/20)
Neighbor rights to territorial preservation: scope of review for discretionary zoning exceptions under § 31(1) BauGB

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

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

Main ground for granting leave to appeal (Revisionszulassung) because the revision can contribute to further clarification of a significant legal question.

§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Procedural rule cited for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute (Streitwertfestsetzung) for the revision proceedings.

§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG

Procedural rule cited for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.

§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Procedural rule cited 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; Blockrandbebauung durch Erhaltungssatzung

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde ist begründet. Die Revision ist nach § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO zuzulassen. Das Revisionsverfahren kann zur weiteren Klärung der Rechtsfrage beitragen, ob § 172 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 1 BauGB auch dann eine tragfähige Rechtsgrundlage für den Erlass einer Erhaltungssatzung ist, wenn die Gemeinde mit der Satzung den Zweck verfolgt, eine vorhandene Bebauung allein wegen ihrer Lärm abschirmenden Funktion für andere bauliche Anlagen ("Blockrandbebauung") zu erhalten.

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