Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
BVerwG 3 B 92/10, 3 B 92/10 (3 C 19/11)•Beef market organization: timing of subsidy application and revision admissibility
BVerwG 3 B 92/10, 3 B 92/10 (3 C 19/11)Bverwg / 3. Abteilung14.04.2011Granted
Von Omnilex extrahiert
The Federal Administrative Court granted the complaint against non-admission of revision. It held that the case has fundamental importance because revision will likely need to clarify the interpretation of Art. 35(1) sentence 2 of Regulation (EC) No. 2342/1999: whether a subsidy application filed one day before export is inadmissible or unfounded, and whether the animals can still be treated as eligible for premium payments. The court did not decide the merits of that substantive question.
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; admission of revision for fundamental importance; Art. 35 Abs. 1 sentence 2 of Regulation (EC) No. 2342/1999 on the timing of export subsidy applications. A complaint succeeds where the case raises an unresolved, decisive question of interpretation requiring clarification in revision. Fundamental importance exists if the legal question is capable of general application and is not yet settled. The appellate court need not answer the substantive question itself; it is sufficient that the disputed provision’s meaning and legal consequences are open and outcome-relevant, as here with respect to an application filed before the animals leave the customs territory (consid. 1).
Entscheidungsdatum: 2011-04-14
Aktenzeichen: 3 B 92/10, 3 B 92/10 (3 C 19/11)
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: Art 35 Abs 1 S 2 EGV 2342/99, § 132 Abs 2 Nr 1 VwGO
Vorinstanz: vorgehend OVG Lüneburg, 1. September 2010, Az: 10 LB 54/08, Urteil
Spruchkörper: 3. Senat
Gemeinsame Marktorganisation für Rindfleisch; Datum des Beihilfeantrags; Revisionszulassung
1 Die Beschwerde hat Erfolg. Der Rechtssache kommt die vom Kläger behauptete grundsätzliche Bedeutung zu (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO). Im Revisionsverfahren wird voraussichtlich die Frage zu klären sein, ob die Bestimmung in Art. 35 Abs. 1 Satz 2 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2342/1999 der Kommission vom 28. Oktober 1999 (ABl Nr. L 281 S. 30), derzufolge Beihilfeanträge "Tiere" im Falle der Ausfuhr nach dem Tag zu stellen sind, an dem die Tiere das Zollgebiet der Gemeinschaft verlassen, dahin auszulegen ist, dass ein - hier um einen Tag - vor diesem Zeitpunkt gestellter Antrag unzulässig oder unbegründet ist und ob dieser Umstand dazu führt, dass die betreffenden Tiere nicht als prämienfähig "festgestellt" anzusehen sind.
Von Omnilex extrahiert
Whether the complaint justified admission of revision for fundamental importance under § 132(2) No. 1 VwGO.
Yes. The case raises a question of fundamental importance requiring clarification in revision.
The court found that the interpretation of Art. 35(1) sentence 2 of Regulation (EC) No. 2342/1999 was unresolved and decisive for the outcome.
How Art. 35(1) sentence 2 of Regulation (EC) No. 2342/1999 must be understood when a subsidy application is filed one day before the animals leave the customs territory.
The court did not decide the substantive question, but stated that revision would likely have to clarify whether such an early application is inadmissible or unfounded and whether the animals can still be regarded as eligible.
The interpretation of the timing rule and its legal consequences were open and potentially outcome-determinative.
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.